Conference back40::soapbox

The Crucifixion: A Medical View
by Dr. C. Truman Davis

"Several years ago I became interested in the physical aspects of the passion,
or suffering, of Jesus Christ when I read an account ofthe crucifixion in Jim
Bishop's book, "The Day Christ Died".  I suddenly realized I had taken the
crucifixion more or less for granted all these years - that I had grown
callous to its horror by a too-easy familiarity with grim details.  It finally
occurred to me that, as a physician, I did not even know the actual immediate
cause of Christ's death.  The gospel writers do not help much on this point.
Since the crucifixion and scourging were so common during their lifetimes,
they undoubtedly considered a detailed description superflous.  For that reason
we have only the concise words ofthe evangelists: "Pilate, having scourged
Jesus, delivered Him to be crucified...and they crucified Him."  Despite the
gospel accounts' silence on the details of Christ's crucifixion, many have
looked into this subject in the past.  In my personal study of the event from
a medical viewpoint, I am indebted especially to Dr. Pierre Barbet, a French
surgeon who did exhaustive historical and experimental research and wrote
extensively on the topic.  An attempt to examine the infinite psychic and
spiritual suffering of the Incarnate God in atonement for the sins of fallen
man is beyond the scope of this article.  However, the physiological and
anatomical aspects of our Lord's passion we can examine in some detail.  What
did the body of Jesus of Nazareth actually endure during those hours of
Torture?

The Method of Crucifixion

This question led first to a study of the practice of crucifixion itself - that
is, the torture and execution of a person by fixation to a cross.  Apparantly,
the first known use of crucifixion was among the Persians.  Alexander and his
generals brought the practice of crucifixion to the Mediterranean world, to
Egypt and to Carthage.  The Romans evidently learned the technique from the
Carthaginians and, as with almost everything the Romans did, they rapidly
developed a high degree of efficiency and skill in carrying it out.  A number
of Roman authors, including Livy, Cicero and Tacitus, comment on it.  Several
innovations and modifications are described in the ancient literature.  Only
a few have some relevance here.  The upright portion of the cross, or stripes,
could have the cross-arm, or patibulum, attached two or three feet below its
top.  this is what we commonly thing of today  as the classical form over
the cross, usually named the Latin Cross.  The common form used in Jesus' day,
however, was the taucross, shaped like the Greek letter Tau or like or letter
T.  On this cross the patibulum was placed in a notch at the top of the stripes.
There is excellent archaeological evidence that it was on this type of cross
that the Jesus was crucified.  The upright post of the cross, however, was
generally permanently fixed in the ground at the site of execution.  The
condemned man was forced to carry the patibulum, apparently weighing about
110 pounds, form the prison to the place of execution.  Without any historical
or biblical proof, however, medieval and Renaissance painters have given us our
picture of Christ carrying the entire cross.  Many painters and most of the
sculptures of crucifixes also make a mistake in showing the nails driven
through the palms.  Roman historical accounts and experimental work have shown
that the nails werer driven between the small bones of the wrists and not
through the palms.  Nails driven through the palm will strip out between the
fingers when they support the weight of a human body.  This misconception may
have come about through a misunderstanding of Jesus' words to Thomas, "Observe
my hands."  Modern and ancient anatomists, however, have always considered the
wrist as part of the hand.  A TITULUS, or small sign stating the victim's crime,
was usually carried at the front of the procession and later was nailed to the
cross above the head.  This sign, with its staff nailed to the top of the cross,
would have given it the characteristic for of the Latin cross.

GETHSEMANE

The physical passion of Christ began in Gethsemane.  Of the many aspects of His
initial suffering, the one which is of particular physiological interest is the
bloody sweat.  Interestingly enough, the physician, St. Luke, is the only
evangelist to mention this occurrence.  He says, "And being in agony, He
prayed the longer.  And His sweat became as drops of blood, trickling down
upon the ground"   Every attempt imaginable has been used by modern scholars
to explain away the phenomenon of bloody sweat, apparantly under the mistaken
impression that it simply does not occur.  A great deal of effort could be
saved by consulting the medical literature.  Though very rare, the phenomenon
of HEMATIDROSIS, or bloody sweat, is well documented. Under great emotional 
stress, tiny capillaries in the sweat glands can break, thus mixing blood with 
sweat.  This process alone could have produced marked weakness and possible 
shock. Although Jesus' betrayal and arrest are important portions of the
passion story, the next event in the account which is significant from a 
medical perspective is His trial before the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas, the High
Priest.  Here the physical trauma was inflicted.  A soldier struck Jesus across
the face for remaining silent when questioned by Caiaphas.  The palace guards
then blindfolded Him, mockingly taunted Him to identify them as each passed by,
spat on Him, and struck Him in the face.

BEFORE PILATE

In the early morning, battered and bruised, dehydrated, and worn out from a
sleepless night, Jesus was taken across Jerusalem to the Praetorium of the 
Fortress Antonia, the seat of government of the Procurator of Judea, Pontius
Pilate.  We are familiar with Pilate's action in attempting to shift
responsibility to Herod Antipas, the Tetrach of Judea.  Jesus apparently
suffered no physical mistreatment at the hands of Herod and was returned to
Pilate.  It was then, in response to the outcry of the mob, that Pilate ordered
Bar-Abbas released and condemned Jesus to scourging and crucifixion.  

There is much disagreement among the authorities about scourging as a prelude to
crucifixion. Most Roman writers from this period do not associate the two.
Many scholars believe that Pilate originally ordered Jesus scourged as His full
punishment and that the death sentence by crucifixion came only in response to
the taunts by the mob that the Procurator was not properly defending Caeser
against this pretender who claimed to be the King of the Jews.  It is doubtful
whether the Romans made any attempt to follow Jewish law in the matter of
scourging.  The Jews had an ancient law prohibiting more than forty lashes. The
Pharisees, always making sure that the law was strictly kept, insisted on only
thirty-nine lashes be given.  Preparations for Jesus' scourging were carried
out at Caesar's orders.

The prisoner was stripped of His clothing and His hands tied to a post above
His head.  The Roman legionnaire stpped forward with the Flagrum, or Flagellum,
in his hand.  This was a short whip consisting of several heavy, leather 
thongs with two small balls of lead attached near the end of each.  The
heavy whip was brought down with full force again and again across Jesus'
shoulders, back and legs.  At first the weighted thongs cut through the skin
only.  Then, as the blows continued, they cut deeper into the subcutaneous
tissues, producing first an oozing of blood from the capillaries and veins of
the skin and finally spurting aterial bleeding from vessels in the underlying
muscles.  The small balls of lead first produced large bruises which were
broken open by subsequent blows.  Finally, the skin of the back was hanging
in long ribbons, and the entire area was an unrecognizable mass of torn,
bleeding tissue.  When it was determined by the centurion in charge that the
prisoner was near death, the beating was finally stopped.

MOCKERY

The half-fainted Jesus was then untied and allowed to slump to the stone
pavement, wet with His own Blood.  The Roman soldier saw a great joke in this
provincial Jew claiming to be king.  They threw a robe across His shoulders
and placed a stick in His hand for scepter.  They still needed a crown to make
their travesty complete.  Small flexible branches covered with long thorns,
commonly used for kindling fires in then charcoal braziers in the courtyard,
were plaited in the shape of a crude crown.  The crown was pressed into His
scalp and again there was copious bleeding as the thorns pierced the very
vascular tissue.  After mocking Him and striking Him across the face, the
soldiers took the stick from His hand and struck Him across the head, driving
the thorns deeper into His scalp.  Finally, they tired of their sadistic sport
and tore the robe from His back.  The robe had already become adherent to the
clots of blood and serum in the wounds, and its removal, just as in the
careless removal of a surgical bandage, caused excruciating pain. The wounds
again began to bleed.

GOLGOTHA

In deference to Jewish custom, the Romans apparantly returned His garments.
The heavy patibulum of the cross was tied across His shoulders.  The procession
of the condemned Christ, two thieves, and the execution detail of Roman
soldiers  headed by a centurion began its slow journey along the route that
we know today as the Via Dolorosa.  In spite of Jesus' efforts to walk erect,
the weight of the heavy wooden beam gouged into the lacerated skin and muscles
of the shoulders.  He tried to rise, but human muscles had been pushed beyond
their endurance.  The centurion, anxious to proceed with the crucifixion, 
selected a stalwart North African onlooker, Simon of Cyrene, to carry the cross.
Jesus followed, still bleeding and sweating the cold and clammy sweat of shock.

The 650-yard journey from the fortress Antonia to Golgotha was finally 
completed.  The prisoner was again stripped of His loin cloth which was allowed
by the Jews.  The crucifixion began.  Jesus was offered wine mixed with myrrh,
a mild analgesic, pain-relieving mixture.  He refused to drink.  Simon was
ordered to place the patibulum on the ground, and Jesus was quickly thrown
backward, with His shoulders against the wood.  The legionnaire felt for the
depression at the front of the wrist.  He drove a heavy, square wrought-iron
nail through the wrist and deep into the wood.  Quickly, he moved to the other
side and repeated the action, being careful not to pull the arms too tightly
but to allow some flexion and movement.  The patibulum was then lifted into
place at the top of the stripes, and the titulus was nailed into place.  The
left foot was pressed backward against the right foot.  With both feet extended,
toes down, a nail was driven through the arch of each, leaving the knees 
moderately flexible.  The victim was now crucified.

On The Cross

As Jesus slowly sagged down with more weight on the nails in the wrist,
excruciating, fiery pain shot along the fingers and up the arms to explode in
the brain.  The nails in the wrists were putting pressure on the median nerves,
large nerve trunks which traverse the mid-wrist and hand.  As He pushed
himself upward to avoid this stretching torment, He placed His full weight on
the nail thorugh His feet.  Again there was a searing agony as the nail tore
through the nerves between the metatarsal bones of the feet.  At this point,
another phenomenon occurred.  As the arms fatigued, great waves of cramps
swept over the muscles, knotting them in deep relentless, throbbing pain. With
these cramps came the inability to push Himself upward.  Hanging by the arms,
the pectoral muscles, the large muscles of the chest, were paralyzed and the
intercostal muscles, the small muscles between the ribs, were unable to act.
Air could be drawn into the lungs, but could not be exhaled.  Jesus fought to
raise himself in order to get even one short breath.  Finally, the carbon
dioxide level increased in the lungs and in the blood stream, and the cramps
partially subsided.

The Last Words

Spasmotically, He was able to push Himself upward to exhale and bring in life-
giving oxygen.  It was  undoubtedly during these periods that He uttered the
several short sentences which are recorded.  The first -looking down at the 
Roman soldiers throwing dice for His seamless garment: "Father, forgive them for
they know not what they do."  The second - to the penitent thief: "Today,
thou shalt be with Me in Paradise."  The third - looking down at Mary His
mother, He said: "Woman, behold thy son." Then turning to the terrified,
grief-stricken adolescent John, the beloved Apostle, He said: "Behold thy
mother."  The fourth cry is from the beginning of Psalm 22: "My God, My God,
why has thou forsaken me?"  He suffered hours of limitless pain, cycles of
twisting, joint-rending cramps, intermittant partial asphyxiation, and searing
pain as tissue was torn from His lacerated back from the movement up and down
against the rough timbers of the cross.  Then another agony began: a deep
crushing pain in the chest as the pericardium, the sac surrounding the heart,
slowly filled with serum and began to compress the heart.  The prophecy of
Psalm 22:14 was being fulfilled: "I am poured out like water, and all my bones
are out of joint, my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels."
The end was rapidly approaching.  The loss of tissue fluids had reached a
critical level; the compressed heart was struggling to pump heavy, thick,
sluggish blood to the tissues, and the tortured lungs were making a frantic
effort to inhale small gulps of air.  The markedly dehydrated tissues sent
their flood of stimuli to the brain.  Jesus gasped His fifth cry: "I thirst."
Again we read in the prophetic Psalm: "My strength is dried up like a potsherd;
and my toungue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou has brought me into the dust of
death" (22:15).  A sponge soaked with posca, the cheap, sour wine which was
the staple drink  of the Roman legionnaires, was lifted to Jesus' lips.  His
body was now in extremis, and He could feel the chill of death creeping through
His tissues.  This realization brought forth His sixth word, possibly little
more than a tortured whisper: "It is finished."  His mission of atonement had
been completed.  Finally, He could allow His body to die.  With one last surge
of strength, He once again pressed His torn feet against the nail, straightened
His legs, took a deeper breath, and uttered His seventh and last cry: "Father
into thy hands I commit my spirit."

Death

We are all familiar with the final details of Jesus' execution.  In order that
the Sabbath not be profaned, the Jews asked that the condemned men be
dispatched and removed from the crosses.  The common method of ending a
crucifixion was by crurifracture, the breaking of the bones of the legs.  This
prevented the victim from pushing himself upward; the tension could not be
relieved from the muscles of the chest, and rapid suffocation occurred.  The
legs of the two thieves were broken, but when the soldiers approached Jesus,
they saw that this was unnecessary.  Apparantly, to make doubly sure of death,
the legionnaire drove his lance between the ribs, upward through the 
pericardium and into the heart.  John 19:34 states, "And immediately there
came out blood and water."  Thus there was an escape of watery fluid from
the sac surrounding the heart.  This is rather conclusive post-mortem evidence
that Jesus died, not the usual crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart
failure due to shock and constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium.

Ressurection

In these events, we have seen a glimpse of the epitome of evil which man can
exhibit toward his fellowman and toward God.  This is an ugly sight and is
likely to leave us despondent and depressed.  But the crucifixion was not the
end of the storsy.  How grateful we can be that we have a sequel: a glimpse
of the infinite mercy of God toward man - the gift of atonement, the miracle
of the resurrection, and the expectation of Easter morning.

    The upright piece is the stipes, not stripes.  I know you admitted to
    spelling errors, but really, you could have fixed this one, given that
    I was kind enough to point it out last year.
    
    Factual error.  The titulus was not usually nailed over the head of the
    victim, it was attached to the stipes below his feet.
    
    Addendum.  The only restriction the Romans had on scourging was that
    the victim not be killed by the punishment.  The flagrum did not have
    two small balls of lead attached to each thong; it had a small dumbbell
    of lead knotted into the thong at the end.
    
    The business of "blood and water" is no certain indication that Jesus
    died of heart failure.  Even a normal, healthy, and uninjured person
    has a nontrivial amount of pericardial fluid; and experiments done with
    cadavers show that when a blade is inserted into the heart from the
    right (not left!) fifth intercostal space, the pericardium is punctured
    and begins to leak its fluid before the heart is penetrated.  The fluid
    that appears, once the heart has been penetrated, is usually a well
    stratified flow, with the blood coursing along the surface of the blade
    and the pericardial fluid showing as a halo surrounding the blood.  It
    is very easy to see both fluids.  This was almost certainly the "blood
    and water" of the Gospel.
    
    The "hours of limitless pain" description is very real, but there is
    sufficient evidence in the prelude to the crucifixion to cause wonder
    that Jesus lived as long as he did.  He almost surely did indeed die of
    heart failure, but it was caused by his brutal treatment before being
    nailed up; he was already more than half dead before reaching Golgotha.

    Re: .0
    
    >died for our sins as an at-one-ment
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    That's just too precious for words.

      Hi,
    
        I don't want to devalue Jesus' physical sufferings, but...
    
        I believe the agony that took place in His mind was such
        that He could barely feel the physical pain involved.
    
        He felt like He was the worst sinner ever.  In His heart, He
        felt like He was such a scoundrel that He would curse perfect
        love (God) forever.  He felt like that sinner.  In the core of
        His being, He felt to be that Man.
    
        That was the real death.
    
        The real resurrection was His faith overcoming the temptation 
        to despair and believing that His Father loved Him and accepted
        Him (which He did).
    
        The physical death and resurrection are schoolmasters pointing to
        a spiritual death and resurrection which had occured prior.
    
    						Tony

    
    No, Tony, your SDA spin just doesn't jive with reality or the Bible.  I
    assure you from my own experience that agony of the mind does not
    diminish agony of the body.  While I held my dead daughter in my arms I
    was agonizing spiritually and emotionally but the pain in my stomach
    could not be ignored.
    
    jeff

  ZZ    The upright piece is the stipes, not stripes.  I know you admitted
  ZZ   to spelling errors, but really, you could have fixed this one, given
  ZZ   that I was kind enough to point it out last year.
    
    Whatever!

Deja vu time again.

| <<< Note 382.7 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| No, Tony, your SDA spin just doesn't jive with reality or the Bible. 

	I'm sorry, but I couldn't let this pass. Notice how Jeff says, "reality
OR the Bible"? heh heh......

    
    re: .9
    
    No Jack.... for christians it's more a time of introspection...
    

    .8
    
    Well, Jack, I just don't want people to get the idea that this is where
    we get the line "By his stripes we are healed."
    
    :-)

    
    > "By his stripes we are healed."
    
    Are you guys talking about Glen again ?!?! :-) :-)
    
    

       re .12 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI:
       
       > for christians it's more a time of introspection...
       
       Are you the same Krawiecki who was so outspoken in the Nashua
       newspaper a while ago in his support for the Rev Ian Paisley?  You
       know, the gentleman from N. Ireland who has had so much to say
       about the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church?
       
       --Mr Topaz

================================================================================
Note 382.5                     JESUS' CRUCIFIXION                        5 of 14
OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless."                    6 lines  11-APR-1995 13:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Re: .0
    
   >>died for our sins as an at-one-ment
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
    
>    That's just too precious for words.
    
    From Websters: 
    
    atone. vi. a*toned', a*ton'ing [ME. at-onen, become reconciled < at
    one, in accord: see AT & ONE].
    
    jeff

    Jeff, I think Chelsea is taking issue with the explicit hyphenation of
    the word.  "at-one-ment" as in "making us at one."
    
    It really is pretty precious, if intentional.  If not, never mind.  :-)

    
    re: .15
    
    >a while ago
    
    8 years ago...
    
    People grow and hopefully mature in a time span such as that...
    
    
    What's your point?
    

| <<< Note 382.14 by MPGS::MARKEY "The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary" >>>


| > "By his stripes we are healed."

| Are you guys talking about Glen again ?!?! :-) :-)

	Brian, I think the Zebra thing is dead. It's a yap yap thang now. :-)

    RE: ,19

    Oh stop it, you're obsessed! :-) :-) :-)
    
    -b

       re .18:

       If your statement that "People grow and hopefully mature [over 8
       years]" means that you now believe that you were mistaken in your
       support of Mr Paisley, I'm glad to hear it.  Of course, if your
       statement means that you just wish you hadn't let everyone else
       know you were a fan of Paisley's, that's a different story.

       You see, Andy, it's the whole judgmental bit.  When somebody
       starts waxing moralistic, that's ok.  But when it turns out that the
       same individual making the judgment calls has voiced sentiments
       that turn moralism on its ears, then it's time to speak out.  
       
       The point, Andy, is that whether it's your [erstwhile] support for
       an obvious anti-Catholic, or Brother Benson and his ugly
       statements about people whose faith doesn't match his�, high-falutin'
       words from people who foster bigotry just don't mean very much.
       
       --Mr Topaz
          
       
       1. Jeff Benson on Islam: "I believe that the God of the Muslims
          has been shown to be ineffective when it really counts."
    
          Jeff Benson on Judaism: "The only Jews worshipping God today
          are the Jews who have accepted Christ as the Messiah and are
          worshipping Him."

    Mr. Topaz:
    
    The core foundation of Judaism is the sacrifice...abundantly clear
    throughout the Mosaic law.  The Jews of today simply do not partake of
    the burnt offerings required for the atonement of sin.
    
    Mohammed was an opportunist just as many spiritual leaders of this
    world are and have been.  Are you familiar with Islam?
    
    -Jack

       
       re .24 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:
       
       > The Jews of today simply do not partake of the burnt offerings
       > required for the atonement of sin.
       
       > Mohammed was an opportunist...
       
       It is the essence of bigotry to trash the beliefs and faith of
       others.  It's just plain ugly, Jack, and you cover yourself in no
       glory when you do it.  
       
       --Mr Topaz

The thing I like about organized religions is the way
it brings people together in peace and harmony.

<--- too funny

    Mr. Topaz:
    
    Ahhhh yes....symbolism without substance.  Thank you for that.
    
    Now let me ask you the question again.  Do the Jews of today
    participate in the sacrifice of the temple for the atonement of sin? 
    This is a rhetorical question that cannot be denied and to sit there
    and call me mean spirited and bigoted for challenging a belief is
    foolhearty at best.  I do it with Christians and there's no reason why
    I cannot expand my knowledge by asking others why they don't practice
    the tenents of their faith.
    
    Apparently, you don't know a whole lot about Mohammed...which is
    alright because I've recently learned about his life and how Islam
    actually proliferated in the world.  Mohammed was an opportunist and
    this isn't a bigot talking.
    
    -Jack

    RE: Opportunist

    I think I'm getting this now. Max from the Sound of Music was
    actually Mohammed in a former life...

    -b

    	Oh, really, Brian?  So if the Von Trapps had failed to make it
    	to the mountains, do you think that Max would have brought the
    	mountains to them?
    
    
    	:^)

    
    Y'all stop being so funny, I'm weeing my drawers! 

Jack, if you'd said "the Jews of today simply do not partake of the burnt
offerings" you'd be fine.  It's when you added "required for the atonement
of sin" that you showed either ignorance or bigotry.

    RE: .30 :-) :-) :-)
    
    Good one Joe!
    
    -b

  ZZ It's when you added "required for the atonement
 ZZ of sin" that you showed either ignorance or bigotry.
    
    Gerald:
    
    I appreciate your response and don't take it lightly.  I also hold no
    claim on being a pinnacle of knowledge but I would like to attempt to
    disprove what you stated above.
    
    To refer to challenging another faith as bigotry is only substantiated
    if jthe intent is either hate or a lack of understanding.  Since I hold
    the highest regard for the Old Testament prophets, the Kings who
    followed God like Hezekiah, David, Solomon...The writers of the
    historical books of the Old Testament, the early disciples of the
    church who were all Jews...and Jesus himself who was born of the tribe
    of Judah and from the lineage of David...then one must conclude I am
    NOT bigoted toward Judaism.  I also hold the law of Moses as written by
    the very finger of God.  The Jews were the chosen people of God...the
    Messiah was to have come from the Jews.  No Gerald, I am not bigoted.
    
    Lack of Understanding...once again,  I do hold to the fact that God
    established the Abrahamic Covenant (God called a people), the Mosaic
    Covenant (God Called a nation), and the Davidic Covenant (God called an
    eternal kingdom).  The Mosaic covenant was very clear on the
    requirements for atonement.  The requirements called for the blood
    sacrifice of rams, bulls,goats, and lambs.  Turtledoves and chickens
    for those in poverty.  The sacrifices included a burnt offering, a sin
    offering, a drink offering, a wave offering...amongst others for
    different reasons.  These offerings are required for atonement of the
    people and a nation.  It was practiced by the Kings and although God
    desired mercy and not sacrifice,"..Without the shedding of blood there
    is NO remission of sin", and this is from the Old Testament.  
    
    I may not be an OT scholar but I am not ignorant.
    
    -Jack
    
    

Burnt offerings!?

I like mine medium rare.

Chickens?  Ho ho.

Since the destruction of the Temple, atonement is gained through penitence,
prayer and charity.

    Says who?!

    According to a Jewish friend of mine, mothers-in-law are the
    primary mechanism for atoning for sin today. Although, he
    hasn't quite figured out how to sacrifice her yet.

    -b

  hmmm... let's see here... atonement through penitence, prayer, and
  what was the other one?  charity?  no no no.  that will never do...

ZZ  Chickens?  Ho ho.
    
    
  It was customary for the pharisees in the days of Christ to inspect the
    chickens within the temple to see if they were unblemished.  They would
    then find fault with them and sell the poor man one of their
    chickens...bringing themselves a nice stipend.  This was when Jesus
    made a whip and said they made his house a den of thieves.
    
    -Jack
    

 ZZ   hmmm... let's see here... atonement through penitence, prayer, and
 ZZ   what was the other one?  charity?  no no no.  that will never do...
    
    Against popular belief Diane, you are absolutely correct.  Under the
    guise of Judaism the sacrifice at the temple is the only method of
    atoning for sin...and sin is what needs to be dealt with if we are to
    inherit eternal life.  This is what I'm gleaning from the Bible anyway.
    
    And I'm quite sure I will be hearing from Mr. Binder soon.  I have no
    doubt that he will quote from Romans where it says Abraham was
    justified by faith and it was accredited to him as righteousness.
    
    -Jack

Ya know, Jack, you are really stepping a bit far out here.

Gerald Sacks isn't just telling you about "popular belief".  He's telling
you about how Judaism really works.

Like orthodox Christianity, orthodox Judaism has _never_ relied on the
heresy of "sola scriptura".  Scripture is interpreted, not by personal
study of the literal words, but together with tradition and the writings
of respected teachers and scholars.  There is a long process of approval
used for doctrine which may appear at first to be innovation before it
can be accepted as legitimate development rather than heresy.

So I don't think you should be so sure about what modern rabbinic Judaism
is all about; you may not base it on your personal reading of the Old
Testament.

God's covenant of salvation with the Jews is not abrogated by the pagans
who destroyed the temple.

/john

Jack, next you'll be telling us that Frank Purdue was one of the
chicken-sellers in the Temple.  "Some chickens are blemished.  But it
takes a tough man to make an unblemished chicken."

Hint: they ain't chickens.

    i dimly recall reading an article in which it was proposed that Jesus
    didn't die, but that the drink/sponge/whatever was laced with a drug to
    mimic death and it was all arranged. then they went to the tomb and got
    him out when he woke up.
    
    like i say i only dimly recall the article so i can't recall all the
    specifics.
    
    ric

    John:
    
    My response to Gerald was merely to disprove the absurd accusation that
    I am a bigot.  As far as ignorance, like I said, I don't claim to hold
    the corner of knowledge...particularly of modern Judaism.  I do however
    cling to the belief that as Jesus said, not one stroke of the pen shall
    be removed from the law.  According to my understanding of the Hebrew
    scriptures, atonement is made through the blood sacrifice and sin
    offerings were mandatory for the covering of sin.  If one is a true
    Jew, then I only question by what authority a people would have the
    right to negate the requirements of the Mosaic law.  We know that our
    authority is Jesus Christ and the new covenant he made with all who
    choose to believe.  
    
    I say this with all due respect.  I fail to understand why somebody
    wouldn't want to question this.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, I agree that you are NOT a bigot. I also agree that you do not
hold the corner on knowledge. :-)

    Well Thanks Glen!!!  You don't know how gratified I am to find somebody
    agrees with me!!!! :-}
    
    -Jack

	I'd say any time Jack, but we both know that will never happen!! :-)

    Isn't Diablo Spanish for the Devil??

    
    
    you're just getting that now???
    
    

| <<< Note 382.50 by GAVEL::JANDROW >>>



| you're just getting that now???


	raq, he did say in another note that he didn't have the corner on
knowledge..... 

And I thought Glen was a daisy wheel printer.

| <<< Note 382.52 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

| And I thought Glen was a daisy wheel printer.


	Nahh.... an HP printer maybe....

    Incidently, now that Israel is and has been a sovereign state, why
    don't they reconstruct the temple?  It seems to me this would be a
    great desire for them!
    
    -Jack

>       The point, Andy, is that whether it's your [erstwhile] support for
>       an obvious anti-Catholic, or Brother Benson and his ugly
>       statements about people whose faith doesn't match his�, high-falutin'
>       words from people who foster bigotry just don't mean very much.
       
>       --Mr Topaz
          
       
>       1. Jeff Benson on Islam: "I believe that the God of the Muslims
>          has been shown to be ineffective when it really counts."
    
>          Jeff Benson on Judaism: "The only Jews worshipping God today
>          are the Jews who have accepted Christ as the Messiah and are
>          worshipping Him."

Mr. Topaz.  Where did I make the above statements you attribute to me (I'm not 
denying that I have made them, I just want to know where and in what context)?

As you may know, I am committed to truth.  If you understand truth, you know
that it is exclusive of error.  If you understand the Bible you know that Jesus
claims to be *the truth*, excluding all other competing claims.  If you 
understand bigotry you know that it implies intolerance.  If you understand
intolerance you know that it means lack of ability to tolerate.  If you
understand tolerance you understand that it means to not interfere with; allow;
permit and to recognize and respect others' beliefs, practices without
sharing them.  I tolerate a great deal of error.  The statements attributed
to me above do not illustrate bigotry.

If you understand Islam, you understand that it is an amalgam of religions,
including rock worship (originally).  If you understand the Bible, you
understand that Jesus Christ fulfilled the covenant of the Law and 
instituted a new covenant.  If you knew something about the history of 
Jesus' time and after His death/resurrection/ascension you would know that
approximately 25% of the Jews followed Jesus, that is, they became Christians.

Finally, why do you judge Andy for what you are surely guilty of yourself?


jeff

>    Incidently, now that Israel is and has been a sovereign state, why
>    don't they reconstruct the temple?  It seems to me this would be a
>    great desire for them!

The United States and most other countries do not recognize Israel's
sovereignty over East Jerusalem (including the old city and the temple
mount).

There are Jews who wish to rebuild the temple.  As has been posted in
this conference by Gerald, there are those who believe God will build
the new temple.  I agree with the latter group, and further believe
that it already happened, and that Christians commemorate the building
of the new temple next Sunday.

/john

    Well, I agree with you there.  But it just seems to me the Jews would
    want to rebuild the Temple for the sacrifice...seeing as how they don't
    believe Jesus to be the Messiah!
    
    -Jack

    >Finally, why do you judge Andy for what you are surely guilty of
>    yourself?
    
>>     Matthew 5:22: "Whoever saith, Thou fool, shall be
>>       in danger of hell fire" [Jesus speaking].
    
>>    Are there flames in your 'weltanschauung'?
    
    Are you talking to me?  Did I call anyone a fool?  What is your motive
    for using Scripture (whose authority you deny) to support a (false)
    assertion?  
    
    jeff

Jack,

    I find it absolutely fascinating that you, as a Christian, having
    studied Christian literature and centuries of Christian translations
    of the scriptures, and following Christian beliefs and practices, find
    yourself to be in the position whereby you can presume to evaluate
    Judaism.

    Truely amazing!

What about Puff the Magic Dragon?

    
    RE: .62
    
    
    Fun's fun...
    
    A joke is a joke...
    
    but was that really necessary?

>    but was that really necessary?

Aw, C'mon, Andy. Jeff set himself up for that one.

    Jack:
    
    If the basis of a religion is formulated in one way, and the masses of
    said religion completely ignore the basis, then don't I as a potential
    convert or outsider have the right to question it? 
    
    I believe challenge of anything is good...be it government or religion.
    This is what our college academia is also rooted in!
    
    -Jack

    
    re: .64
    
    You're right Jack...
    
    I forgot it's always "open season" on thumpers...
    

    Andy:
    
    I thrive on abuse and pain!!
    
    
    Which is why I'm back in the life center!!!!!!!!!!!
    My goal is to lose 25 lbs.
    
    But I digress!!!!
    
    -Jack

    
    Oh Andy, lighten up!  That was in no way an attack on Jeff.  It was
    darn funny.

| <<< Note 382.59 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Are you talking to me?  Did I call anyone a fool?  What is your motive
| for using Scripture (whose authority you deny) to support a (false)
| assertion?

	Jeff, I think what you are failing to see is he doesn't have to believe
in the authority, as he isn't making any claims to how accurate HE thinks it
is. But you my friend, live and breathe by the book. You have to submit to it's
perceived authority because of your beliefs. I think that was what he might
have been hinting at. (imho)


Glen

Ah yes,  what a thought,  that someone,  somewhere in the world,  is having
fun.

	Andy, you seem to like to slam others, and think nothing of it. Yet
someone comes in and says something funny, which didn't slam a single person,
and you go off. Funny guy yes you are....

    
    
    Mz_deb...
    
    You say tomato and I say tomahto...
    
    RE: .70
    
    Phil,
    
     I hope you remember that next time I joke about your height... okay?

>Ah yes,  what a thought,  that someone,  somewhere in the world,  is having
>fun.
    
    what !?!? where !??! surely not?
    
    tsk tsk shouldn't be allowed
    
    ric

    
    RE: .71
    
    What   didn't   you   understand   about   .63   ????
    
    
    > Andy, you seem to like to slam others, and think nothing of it
    
    And of course, you're a lily-white innocent???
    
    You really are comprehension impaired... aren't you?
    

| <<< Note 382.74 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!" >>>


| > Andy, you seem to like to slam others, and think nothing of it

| And of course, you're a lily-white innocent???

	Nice diversion Andy, but it didn't work. 

| You really are comprehension impaired... aren't you?

	Keep diverting andy...

    
    Maybe he didn't get the joke.

re: .65, Jack

If one were a potential convert to Judaism, Jack, I would assume that
one would be studying something other than Christian materials to gain
a thorough understanding of what was behind the beliefs. Do you not
perhaps think that the texts and materials studied by Judaic scholars
differ in some substantial ways from what you have available to you
as a Christian? Do you not think that the traditions of Judaism lead
one to interpret even the facts in a different light? How utterly
crass of you to think that you have the answers and to accuse practicing
Jews of ignoring the "basis" of their religion. Do you wish next to tell
us what the Buhdists and Hindus are doing "wrong"?

I respect your views on many subjects, Jack, but I remain astounded that
you can be so presumptuous as to challenge those of another faith based
on an obviously incomplete understanding of their theology.

The fact that this needs to be pointed out to you by a mere atheist such
as myself is almost laughable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <<< Note 382.59 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Are you talking to me?  Did I call anyone a fool?  What is your motive
| for using Scripture (whose authority you deny) to support a (false)
| assertion?

	Jeff, I think what you are failing to see is he doesn't have to believe
in the authority, as he isn't making any claims to how accurate HE thinks it
is. But you my friend, live and breathe by the book. You have to submit to it's
perceived authority because of your beliefs. I think that was what he might
have been hinting at. (imho)


Glen

    
    
     I got the joke mz_deb... 
    
    
    RE: .75
    
    >Nice diversion Andy, but it didn't work.
    
    Only in your own tiny little world.... 

HEY!  ANY ONE HEAR ABOUT THOSE TWO WOMEN IN PENNSYLVANIA
WHO GO TO CHURCH AND SHOUT THE ROSARY SO LOUD THAT THEY'VE
ALREADY BEEN KICKED OUT OF ONE CHURCH!!!!

THEY SPLASH HOLY WATER, TOO!!

       re .55:

       Let's see if I've got this right, Jeff:

           � Jeff Benson says that "[bigotry] implies intolerance"
             (Soapbox 382.55)

           � Jeff Benson says that tolerance means "...to recognize and
             respect others' beliefs, practices without sharing them."
             (Soapbox 382.55)

           � Jeff Benson says that "...the God of the Muslims has been
             shown to be ineffective when it really counts."  
             (GOLF::CHRISTIAN, 394.151, 27-FEB-1991)

           � Jeff Benson says that "The only Jews worshipping God today
             are the Jews who have accepted Christ as the Messiah and are
             worshipping Him." (GOLF::CHRISTIAN, 394.154, 27-FEB-1991)

       Now, Jeff Benson might well believe that the 3rd and 4th bullet
       listed above are consistent with recognizing and respecting
       others' beliefs.  Why not -- after all, Wallace and Maddox used
       to claim (and, who knows, maybe even believe) that they were the
       friend of the black man, just as LePen claims today that he's a
       friend of N Africans and Jews.  Jeff Benson might believe that
       his statements don't have the stench of intolerance of others'
       faiths, but he ought not expect decent people to follow suit.

       --Mr Topaz

       re .55:
       
       > why do you judge Andy [Krawiecki] for what you are surely guilty
       > of yourself?
       
       Excuse me, Benson?  I accused Krawiecki of being outspoken in his
       support of a man known for his virulent attacks on the Roman
       Catholic Church and the Pope.  (It's curious that Krawiecki sent
       up a vague "People grow and hopefully mature" statement rather
       than disavowing his support, but that's a different issue.)
       
       Where the hell do you get off claiming that I am "surely guilty"
       of the same thing?  Benson, you claim to be "committed to the
       truth" -- can you please demonstrate where you find that I support
       racism?  Or is your commitment to the truth as evanescent as your
       tolerance for others?
       
       --Mr Topaz

    
    re: .83
    
    Vague to you...
    
    You took the ball and carried it (the wrong way might I add)
    
    I still don't know why you brought it up, but I'm learning a bit about
    "Mr." Topaz... 
    
     You and another "Mr." who contributes here must swap a lot of bile.
    

RE: 382.55 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

> As you may know, I am committed to truth.  

Like,  say,  for example,  Moon Math.  Please comment on 
YUKON::CHRISTIAN  663.78


Phil

| <<< Note 382.78 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
| -< let him answer for himself, Glen >-



	Jeff, I think the (imho) is there for a reason. That it was not the
difinitive answer, but what I thought he meant. Sorry if ya got a problem with
that. 


Glen

    YARN - how nice to have this here yes indeedy.  

>>    YARN - how nice to have this here yes indeedy.  

	yes!  and what better place to spew lots of vitriol and accusations
	than in a topic on the crucifixion!  how splendid!

    The latest issue of U.S. News & World Report has a long article on
    archaeological findings in Israel and environs that support, fail to
    support, or are silent w.r.t. various stories in OT and NT.
    
    A brief mention is made in the article of Asherah -- perhaps the wife
    or consort of Yahweh (in very early conceptions of the latter). 
    
    Latest issue of Time features fashion news.

    re: .7
    
       Ok, Jeff, lets agree on one thing...
    
       Don't leave out the agony of mind that was relevent to
       things other than the physical pain.
    
       I don't care for you 'SDA-spin' comment and not all my
       beliefs can be considered 'SDA-spin.'
    
       I'll also try to understand that you come from an
       'evangelical' spin.
    
       But, I won't share with the notion that evengelical =
       truth of the Bible.
    
    						Tony

ZZ  How utterly
ZZ  crass of you to think that you have the answers and to accuse practicing
ZZ  Jews of ignoring the "basis" of their religion. Do you wish next to tell
ZZ  us what the Buhdists and Hindus are doing "wrong"?

I can understand your feeling on this matter.  Please remember however that I 
was quite careful to point out WHY my perception is the way it is...and to 
this point it hasn't been refuted.  I fail to understand how any human 
intervention would have the right to supercede the law of penitence and 
charity above Gods perfect plan of atonement.  Sorry, I just fail to see this,
but I am at least admitting my mental frailty here! :-)

The Hebrew scriptures tell us to test the spirits if you will.  The prophets 
of old were very much under scrutiny and faced death if they were shown to be
a false prophet.  I believe...with any religion, it is important to do this...
even ones own religion.  It says in that the disciples studied the scriptures
DAILY to see if these things were so.  I am doing nothing different in my
inquiry.
 
ZZ  I respect your views on many subjects, Jack, but I remain astounded that
ZZ  you can be so presumptuous as to challenge those of another faith based
ZZ  on an obviously incomplete understanding of their theology.

Like I said, I think these questions should be their greatest priority.  It was
in the days with Jews in the early church and it should be today.  

Incidently, there are more references of the Old Testament in Pauls letters than
anywhere else in the New Testament...Pauls letters help establish the
doctrine of the church.  The Hebrew scriptures are vital to the integrity of the
New Testament.


-Jack

Jack, your Bible knowledge is sadly lacking.  Please cite verses that
describe chicken sacrifices.  And while you're at it, how about the
verses that say that atonement is achieved only through Temple offerings?

> Like I said, I think these questions should be their greatest priority.

Well, I often get the feeling that the Pope should extract his head from his
anus and join the 20th century, as well, but I don't make it a practice to
go around expressing this opinion to every Catholic acquaintance I know,
nor do I state it as an opinion to be refuted by them. I fully realize
that the beliefs held by Catholics are largely supportive of the voice
of the Vatican, and for the most part I avoid questioning it, since it's
sufficient for me to recognize that it's an area of difference.

Besides, my mother yells at me when I do that . . . 

:^)

> Besides, my mother yells at me when I do that . . . 

"Jack, why can't you be more like John-boy?"

    Gerald:
    
    I will furnish what information I can.  But even if I'm wrong about the
    chickens, do you really believe my knowledge of the Bible is sadly
    lacking?  I'm no expert but at least I have the ability to pose
    questions based on scripture from your covenant!
    
    -Jack

If two out of two claims are wrong, I'd say your knowledge is lacking.

Tough logic to argue with, that.

    Jack:
    
    So...your mother yelled at you eh??!  Well, you probably deserved it!
    :-)  No, actually my next point is to mention how surprised I am that
    you as an athiest are not open to testing the viability of certain
    beliefs...or at least the compliance to ones own covenant.  I know
    exactly what you are saying Jack and I do agree this form of dialog
    does bring one out of their comfort zone.  
    
    I sang at a Bahmitzvah (sp?) about a half year ago.  I was extremely
    moved by the cantor (a woman no less) and the music sung at this event.
    I found it to be of great value to me as one outsidfe the Jewish faith.  
    And I, a gentile, was permitted to sing at this boys Bahmitzvah.  Kind
    of shows you I am not bigoted and very much open to other faiths.  I
    looked at it as an opportunity to minister and to be ministered to.  
    I believe however...again, the importance of dialog and seeking truth
    is rooted in challenging one in their beliefs...even if it sounds
    ignorant!  Go to the evolution topic...you'll find peoples beliefs
    challenged there regularly!!
    
    -Jack 

    nail this SNARF to a cross.

<----
   What a way with words that man has.

>    No, actually my next point is to mention how surprised I am that
>    you as an athiest are not open to testing the viability of certain
>     beliefs...or at least the compliance to ones own covenant.

Well, I begin working from the standpoint that as a non-believer, and one
who hasn't the grasp of the concept of "faith" that practicing religious
people do, it's clear to me that I can't fully understand the totality
of their beliefs. And I _certainly_ can't claim to have the intimate
knowledge of their culture/background/traditions/literature/theology
to be able to question its validity. I may have lack of understanding
of certain concepts about which I may be curious, and of those I normally
ask non-threatening questions, rather than posing opinions which require
a rebuttal.

I don't begrudge people their faith. As Timothy Leary once said when I
saw him in a semi-lucid state (Tim, not me) back in 1967, "Do your own thing,
just don't lay your bag on anybody else."

Now, when someone's "bag" appears to be being layed too close to me,
I certainly comment, question, and complain. But for the most part,
I think people should be left to their faith without interference.

    Jack:
    
    That leaves me in a not so popular spot because one of the commandments
    Jesus gave us in the gospels is as follows:
    
    "Go therefore into all the world and preach the gospel, making disciples
    of all nations...and lo I am with you, even unto the end of the age"
    
    If you look back into history, you will find that martyrdom was very
    commonplace in early Christianity.  This happened for two reasons.
    
    1. Christianity interfered with the doctrines of men, (Pharisees are an 
       example)
    
    2. Christianity interfered with the money making of others, (Again
       Pharisees or Jewish leaders being an example).
    
    Christianity is a devisive faith, make no mistake about that.  We are
    called to spread the message of redemption through the cross.  Again,
    the atonment issue comes to play here...Jesus shedding his blood and
    all!  Christianity is not supposed to be a complacent faith.  It is not
    right for a believer to sit on his/her laurels...or hardys for that
    matter!
    
    Gerald, I find your reply to be presumptive and tainted with
    emotionalism...considering the Jews were committed to the oracles of
    God, I find your defensiveness somewhat illogical.
    
    -Jack
    

 Jesus told us to spread the gospel, that we must do.  There are those who
 reject it, He told us that as well.  But, He did not tell us that we must
 argue one into accepting the gospel. We may win and intellectual battle over
 the truth of the Bible, or the existance of God and the proofs of the
 resurrection.  But, it's hearts that must be changed, and no amount of arguing
 or debating will do that.  I love telling people what knowing Christ has done
 in my life, and what it will do in their lives.  But, that won't happen by 
 debate.  





 Jim

    I realize that Jim...and I'm not in this to win a debate.  I'm just
    doing what Jack D finds abhooent...namely, stating a premise and
    expecting a rebuttal.
    
    -Jack

Stating a premise and expecting a rebuttal is a rather severe form
of spreading the word of your god, though, isn't it, Jack?

I suppose the method is up to the discretion of the evangelist,
afterall, but it would appear to me that a confrontational approach
is much less likely to be taken in good faith by the confrontee.

    I'm approaching this as an inquiry and not to evangelize.  What I said
    was that the requirements of the Mosaic law are not being adhered to in
    todays age.  Without the sacrifice there is no atoning for sin;
    therefore, I simply ask how modern Judaism...regardless of all the good
    works put forth, deals with the atonement aspect of their faith without
    the sacrifice.
    
    -Jack

>                                                               What I said
>    was that the requirements of the Mosaic law are not being adhered to in
>    todays age.  Without the sacrifice there is no atoning for sin;
>    therefore, I simply ask how modern Judaism...regardless of all the good
>    works put forth, deals with the atonement aspect of their faith without
>    the sacrifice.

Jack, I'm still waiting for you to cite verses.  Both atonement and chickens,
please.

Neither verse, nor both together, proves Jack's claim that there is no
atonement except through offerings.

    After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the Jania Council
    decided that one of the ways the Jews could provide a sacrifice for the
    atonement of sin...on the Great Day of Atonement was to substitute a
    chicken for a lamb...considering the people were poor and there was no
    alter.  This could be done in their own home.
    
    Antiochus sacrificed pigs during the Macabeean period which defiled the
    temple.  This indicates that there are sacrifices that are displeasing
    to God.  Cains sacrifice is also another example.  I don't know if
    chickens were pleasing to God but they weren't listed in the Levitical
    Law.         I concede error as I thought chickens could be substituted
    under the Mosaic law.  Turtledoves were the actual bird to be
    sacrificed by poor people...of which Mary sacrificed a Turtledove after
    the birth of Jesus.  
    
    "...without the shedding of blood there remains no sacrifice for sin."
     Hebrews 9:22
    
    "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you
    upon the alter to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood
    that maketh an atonement for your souls."
    Leviticus 17:11
    
    Gerald, what do you think the significance of Jesus dying on the cross
    is as well as his resurrection?  You don't have to answer it but just
    think about this.  Jesus is called the Lamb of God.  He shed his blood
    for the sin of mankind.  Jesus was a FULFILLMENT of the law and the
    prophets.
    
    -Jack
    
    

    Re: 109
    
    No, they most certainly are NOT in contradiction to one another. 
    Remember, Abels sacrifice was pleasing to God and Cains was not.  The
    reason is because Cain did not give of his best to God.  
    
    Jeremiah the prophet was a contemporary of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel
    during the times of the Babylonian exile.  The three prophets, Jer.,
    Ezekiel, and Isaiah prophecied before the exile while Daniel was toward
    the end.  The three mentioned many times how God abhorred their
    sacrifices and detested their New moon festivals and sabbaths.  Why? 
    Because the Israelites were living in idolatry.  Not because God didn't
    like sacrifices.  Their hearts were waxed cold and exile ensued!
    
    Gods word is perfect but cannot avoid being taken out of context...both
    intentionally and unintentionally.
    
    -Jack

>    "...without the shedding of blood there remains no sacrifice for sin."
>     Hebrews 9:22

Hebrews is in the NT.

>    "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you
>    upon the alter to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood
>    that maketh an atonement for your souls."
>    Leviticus 17:11

I don't see the word "only" here.
    
>    Gerald, what do you think the significance of Jesus dying on the cross
>    is as well as his resurrection?

Assuming he was a real historical character, it seems that he was a man who
upset the Roman authorities and was executed by the Romans.  Obviously I don't
believe that he was resurrected.

    Jesus was crucified by the Jews under Roman authority.  Quick scenario.
    
    - Jesus rides on the foal of a donkey into Jerusalem and is greeted by
    an exuberant crowd shouted...:Hosanna in the Highest...Blessed is he
    who comes in the name of the Lord..."  Jesus was quite popular at this
    point.  Why?  Because the Jews saw him as one who was going to topple
    the Roman government and give the Jews their independence.
    
    - First thing Jesus does in Jerusalem is make a whip and chase the
    Priests and Pharisees out of the Temple for making the Temple, "...a
    den of robbers."   Ooops...Jesus is being the puppet they expected him
    to be.
    
    - As the days go by that week, Jesus does absolutely nothing to topple
      me.  The Jews have their hopes dashed.
    
    - Pharisees see Jesus as useless to them but dangerous to their power
      base.  They create false charges and have him arrested.
    
    - The Jewish rulers were adament about putting him to death.  The
    crowds yelled..."CRUCIFY HIM!"  Pontious Pilate caves in and says, "Do
    What You Will."  He then washes his hands of the whole thing.
    
    Now the Jews weren't bad people...and 50 days later over 3000 of them
    converted to Christianity.  At the time however, they turned from a
    supporting excited following to a vicious angry mob.  And when Pilate
    washed his hands of this, the crowd yelled, "May his blood be on us AND
    our children."  How wonderful they were prophecying without realizing
    it!!!  
    
    Gerald, The activites surrounding the priests, the Temple, and the Holy
    of Holies was paramount to the needs of the Jewish faith.  The Hebrews
    were required to have their sins covered just as it is everybodys
    need...including my own for sure!!!
    
    -Jack

RE: 382.55 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

> As you may know, I am committed to truth.  

Oh?  So how does this fit with Creationism?


Phil

    .115
    
    Jack, you're digging yourself deeper here.
    
    > Jesus was crucified by the Jews under Roman authority.
    
    He was not.  The Jewish leaders brought Jesus to Pilate SPECIFICALLY
    because they could not under their law put a man to death and therefore
    wanted the Romans to do it for them.
    
    Ultimately, Pilate saw from the crowd's behavior (stirred on by their
    leaders, who knew the value of mob psychology) that if he DIDN'T
    crucify Jesus he risked an uprising.  So he yielded as a simple matter
    of political pragmatism.  This is not to say, however, that he was
    feeling a personal unwillingness to do it.  He was a notoriously brutal
    official; he was finally removed from his position after he engineered
    a massacre in Galilee.  His reason for demurring wasn't because he
    cared, but rather because it would be a hassle to write a report of the
    crucifixion, which Roman military law required of him.  Such a report
    was bound to reflect poorly on a procurator who couldn't keep the peace
    except by killing a man whose only real crime was a religious one.

    Yes Dick...Just what I said.
    
    Pilates part in this was strictly for political reasons.  I understand
    that a death sentence could only be approved by Roman authority and not
    the Jews...I understand that.  But Pilate stated, "I FIND NO FAULT IN
    THIS MAN."  It was the heart of the Jewish mob that caused the sentence
    to be carried out!
    
    -Jack

    No, Jack, it's NOT what you said.  It may have been what you meant, but
    "crucified by the Jews under Roman authority" is not, I promise you,
    the same as "crucified by the Romans at Jewish insistence."
    
    Trust me on this.

    Gerald:
    
    In my desire to learn...since I'm apparently pissing people off here
    for some stupid reason...
    
    What do you think of the Council of Jania?  Do you hold that as
    inspired as the Old Testament...or a replacement for it?
    
    Is there anything in the Hebrew scriptures indicating God had another
    mode of atonement other than the blood sacrifice?
    
    Since Passover is approaching (Which ironically involved the lambs
    blood on the lentils of the door) is approaching, I would think this
    might help me out.  Thanks.
    
    -Jack
    

    Dick:
    
    Your making a mountain out of a mole hill here.
    
    Chill out!

    .121
    
    No, Jack, I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill.  What is
    happening here is that you are exposing your ignorance of Judaism and
    your carelessness of expression right and left, and refusing to admit
    it.  Under the guise of "I don't know, I'm looking for information" you
    are stating here the same sorts of misconceptions and loosely worded
    things that you likely state elsewhere.  Here, there are people who
    know the answers and are willing to share them.  Elsewhere, the people
    who hear you might not be so lucky; they might believe what you say
    without hearing the "I don't know, I'm looking for information" that
    comes along after you're called on it a couple of times.
    
    If you're really looking for information, you START OUT by asking the
    questions you finally got around to asking in .120.
    
    And, oh, by the way, it's lintels.  Lentils are food, from a plant
    related to the pea.

Thanks for attending to the lentils, Dick. The thought of them in blood
was starting to get to me.

    Whatever on the lintels...lentels...whatever...but thanks for pointing
    that out.
    
    Yes, I am ignorant to modern Judaism...never denied that.  This is why
    back around .40 I asked Gerald (quite nicely and without ambiguity) to
    reconcile the sacrificial system under the Mosaic law with modern
    Judaism.  I have yet to get an answer to this so that was my reason for
    my reeeaaalll gentle inquiriy a few replies back.  I think you're being
    a baby about this but if you really want me to be PC about it, then I
    will ask nicely from now on.
    
    By the way, don't ever consider law or secondary education as a
    profession.  You have the smarts but you lack the temperament for
    critical dialog...(That is unless you want to teach at a state college
    in Massachusetts).
    
    -Jack

    
    I think Jack has been taking noting lessons from George.

<----<grin>

>    back around .40 I asked Gerald (quite nicely and without ambiguity) to
>    reconcile the sacrificial system under the Mosaic law with modern
>    Judaism.

Jack,
    I'd suggest you go back and review your replies. It pretty much started
    with this -


.24>    The core foundation of Judaism is the sacrifice...abundantly clear
.24>    throughout the Mosaic law.  The Jews of today simply do not partake of
.24>    the burnt offerings required for the atonement of sin.


		and it's pretty much been going down hill ever since.

    Santaria, not Floridian but an import from Cuba and elsewhere.  

re: .128

Take care not to lump the Onondagas in with the Winnebagos, Ray.

    .124
    
    > you lack the temperament ...
    
    Jack, if you think my box persona is congruent with my real life
    persona, you are in sad case.  :-)

    This troubles me.
    
    Onondaga

    Forget it!  Who cares...
    
    I find it interesting that all you whiners out there are up in arms
    over my supposed tactics and insynsytyvyty...however, at the same time
    Gerald is calm cool and collective...or is ignoring my question which
    is his business and that's fine.
    
    Gerald, I'm sorry if I came across as an arrogant know it all.  There
    is no question you are an giant in Hebrew history...and I could
    probably learn much from you.  I'm sorry for the embarrassing display
    put forth here by our fellow boxers...who lack the desire to broaden
    their scope of knowledge and obviously lack the ability to think
    critically!! 
    
    -Jack

No, Jack - please don't take it upon yourself to apologize for us.
It's unnecessary. Really it is.
Really.

	Jack M., you always put questions in statement forms. That is the thing
I have seen some question. Change that and the learning process can begin.

    What's Gerald collecting anyway? Or is he _a_ collective? The latter I
    would understand....

>    What's Gerald collecting anyway? Or is he _a_ collective? The latter I
>    would understand....

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party.

re .120:

>    What do you think of the Council of Jania?

I'd never heard of it before this string.

>    Is there anything in the Hebrew scriptures indicating God had another
>    mode of atonement other than the blood sacrifice?

I'll have to look it up.  Of course, there's more to Judaism than the
written law.

    >>I'm sorry for the embarrassing display
    >>put forth here by our fellow boxers...who lack the desire to broaden
    >>their scope of knowledge and obviously lack the ability to think
    >>critically!! 

	aaagagagagagag.  what a ninny.  ;>

    	I wonder if it is so terrible to ask questions in a statement
    	form.

    .81 Mr. Rosch:
    
    You must be a liar.  I have called no one a fool.
    
    jeff

    re: .134
    
    I still like you Jack!
    
    ...Tom

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 382.91                    JESUS' CRUCIFIXION                      91 of 142
STRATA::BARBIERI                                     17 lines  12-APR-1995 13:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re: .7
    
       Ok, Jeff, lets agree on one thing...
    
       Don't leave out the agony of mind that was relevent to
       things other than the physical pain.
    
       I don't care for you 'SDA-spin' comment and not all my
       beliefs can be considered 'SDA-spin.'
    
       I'll also try to understand that you come from an
       'evangelical' spin.
    
       But, I won't share with the notion that evengelical =
       truth of the Bible.
    
        						Tony
    
    Tony,  I'm sorry if I offended you.  However, I find you constantly
    obfuscating the truth with the radical SDA theology you hold to which
    is no gospel at all but something foreign to biblical doctrine.
    
    jeff  

    .82,.83
    
    Mr. Topaz:
    
    Spend some time with a dictionary.
    
    In response to your feigned attempt at indignation, the point I was
    making is that Andy, like all of us, has at one time (maybe many times)
    regretted past actions.   Would you like to deny that you've ever said
    anything publicly that you wished you hadn't?
    
    jeff

    I know...I like you guys too...
    
    No hard feelings!!
    
    -Jack

    
    
    Gee, it's getting all warm and fuzzy in here.....

Today is Maundy Thursday; the name comes from the Latin "mandatum"
which means "commandment", for on this day Our Lord gave his disciples
the new commandment, to love each other as He has loved us.  As a sign
of his love and continuing presence with us, on this evening he instituted
the Lord's Supper.

A Reading from a Sermon of Thomas Aquinas, Priest and Friar [1274]

The happy commemoration of today's feast with its immense concourse of
people invites us to prolong fervently our praises of the Most Holy
Body of Christ.  What could be sweeter, what more pleasing to the
heart of the faithful than to exalt the abyss of his divine charity,
and to glorify the overflowing torrent of his love!  At the table of
new grace the hand of the priest distributes ceaselessly his Flesh
as food and his precious Blood as drink, to those who are his children
and heirs of the kingdom promised by God to those who love him.

O endless Emanation of the goodness of God and of his immense love
for us, admirable and worthy of all praise!  In this sacrament, where
all former sacrifices are done away with, he remains with us to the
end of the world; he feeds the children of adoption with the bread of
angels and inebriates them with filial love.

This is the food and drink for the elect, living bread and spiritual
nourishment, remedy for daily weaknesses!  It is the table which Christ
has prepared for his friends and guests, like the one the father
prepared for his son on the day of his return, to replace the symbolic
lamb.  This is the Passover in which the victim immolated is Christ;
O Christ our Passover, you want us too to pass over from vice to
virtue; as once you delivered the Jews, so now you set us free in
spirit.  You are the food that satisfies all but the most hardened;
food that is eaten by faith, tasted by fervor, assimilated by charity.
O viaticum of our pilgrimage, you lead travellers to the height of
virtue.  Confirm my heart in good, assure it in the paths of life,
give joy to my soul, purify my thoughts.

The Eucharist is bread, real bread; we eat it without consuming or
dividing it; it converts but itself is not changed; it gives strength
without ever losing it; it gives perfection and suffices for salvation;
it gives life, it confers grace, it remits sins.  It is the food of
souls, a food which enlightens the intelligence of the faithful,
inflames their hearts, purifies them from their shortcomings, elevates
their desires.

O chalice that holy souls love to drink of, chalice of fervor, chalice
changed into the Blood of Christ, to seal the new Alliance, withdraw
from us the old leaven, fill our souls with yourself, that we may
become a new paste and that we may go to the feast with the unleavened
bread of sincerity and truth.  For the Lamb without spot, who knows no
touch or stain of any sin, ought to be eaten with unleavened bread.
We should not approach without being cleansed by confession, without
having a solid foundation of faith, without being in charity.

Come to the Lord's supper, if you wish to come to the nuptials of the
Lamb; there we shall be inebreated with the riches of the house of
God, we shall see the King of glory and the God of hosts in all his
beauty, we shall eat this bread in the kingdom of the Father.


Taken from "Readings for the Daily Office from the Early Church" edited
by F. Robert Wright, Church Hymnal Corporation.

	Jeff, can't Tony's truth be truth to him? 

    It can be truth to him Glen...but it is not truth!
    
    My truth:  David Brudnoy will not die and I will continue to enjoy his
    commentary on WBZ.
    
    Fact:  Jack you stupid ass...stop acting like your old mother n law and
    get with reality.  David Brudnoy is on the verge of death...He will die
    relatively soon, and you're not too astute if you continue to live in
    your mamby pamby world.
    
    Hope this helps.  No offense to anybody!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 382.150 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| It can be truth to him Glen...but it is not truth!


	Jack, that's all I'm stating, that it is truth to him. There is only
One who knows 100% for sure what is truth and what is not. You, Tony, and I can
not possibly know for sure that ANYTHING we believe is the Abstolute Truth.
Otherwise one of us would be God Himself, and that isn't possible. :-)

| My truth:  David Brudnoy will not die and I will continue to enjoy his
| commentary on WBZ.

	Jack, I heard this morning on WBZ news that they expect him out of the
hospital in 2 days, and back on the air within a week. (he<rd Thursday morn)

| Hope this helps.  

	Yes, hope this helps....


Glen

ZZ    One who knows 100% for sure what is truth and what is not. You, Tony,
ZZ    and I can
ZZ    not possibly know for sure that ANYTHING we believe is the Abstolute
ZZ    Truth.
ZZ    Otherwise one of us would be God Himself, and that isn't possible. :-)
    
    Sorry to do this but the Word of God says differently.
    
    "And this is the testimony of God, that He has given us His Son, and in
    the Son we have life.  He who has the Son has life.  He who does not
    have the Son has not life.  These things I've written to you who
    believe in the name of the Son of God in order that you may KNOW you
    have eternal life."  1st John 5:11-13.
    
    I know spouting verses isn't popular in this forum but I think it is
    important to know the full assurance of salvation is in fact non
    priveleged information and is available to all who want it.  One does
    not have to be God to know these things.  
    
    Therefore, as I said, perceived truth and truth are vastly different
    and one is in fact a lie.
    
    -Jack

>
	Jack, that's all I'm stating, that it is truth to him. There is only
>One who knows 100% for sure what is truth and what is not. You, Tony, and I can
>not possibly know for sure that ANYTHING we believe is the Abstolute Truth.
>Otherwise one of us would be God Himself, and that isn't possible. :-)

>Glen
    
    Glen, after stating that "that's all I'm stating, it is truth to him"
    you go on to say that no one (except God) can know what is truth and 
    what is not. You're confused as usual...and that's the 100%
    unadulterated truth.
    
    jeff

RE:                  <<< Note 382.151 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>Otherwise one of us would be God Himself, and that isn't possible. :-)


  How do you know that?







 Jim

    
    re: .153
    
    get ready for an exciting lesson in Quips 101!!!
    

    re: .128
    
    So Winneabagos and Fairlanes *don't* have accidents!
    They have human sacrifices!  *That* explains everything!
    
    :-) :-)

| <<< Note 382.152 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Sorry to do this but the Word of God says differently.

	Oh, I know what the book says Jack. 

| I know spouting verses isn't popular in this forum but I think it is important
| to know the full assurance of salvation is in fact non priveleged information 
| and is available to all who want it. One does not have to be God to know these
| things.

	Your belief is in a book. Your belief is only as good as your
interpretation of the book. Humans are far from perfect. So you're still in the
same boat as everyone else.

| Therefore, as I said, perceived truth and truth are vastly different and one 
| is in fact a lie.

	Jack, both interpretations could be wrong.....

| <<< Note 382.153 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| Glen, after stating that "that's all I'm stating, it is truth to him" you go 
| on to say that no one (except God) can know what is truth and what is not. 

	Wow.... I would have thought you would have understood that. You or I
could have a belief. To us, our belief is true. ONLY God knows for sure if
either of our beliefs are true or not. Pretty simple.

| You're confused as usual...and that's the 100% unadulterated truth.

	Back at ya Jeffy boy. 



Glen

| <<< Note 382.154 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>



| >Otherwise one of us would be God Himself, and that isn't possible. :-)

| How do you know that?

	Cuz none of the people I was talking about has claimed to be anything
else but a human being who makes mistakes. 



Glen

RE:                  <<< Note 382.158 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>


>	Wow.... I would have thought you would have understood that. You or I
>could have a belief. To us, our belief is true. ONLY God knows for sure if
>either of our beliefs are true or not. Pretty simple.


  That's right...its the ol' guessing game, God's big practical joke on 
 us all..




   Jim

    ZZZ        Jack, both interpretations could be wrong.....
    
    Exactly...but what's most important is to recognize that both can't be
    right!!!  This was the point I was making with the Brudnoy example.
    
    -Jack

    I find it interesting Glen, that you fall back on the interpretation
    argument frequently...yet you never have an alternative interpretation
    to offer!
    
    -Jack

    Guys, despite the assurances of faith and the words of the Bible, it is
    still a cold hard fact that it boils down to BELIEVING in eternal life
    and all else that comes from God.  We do not KNOW, except that we
    choose to accept these things as true.  KNOWING is being able to PROVE
    them true for all possible circumstances to which they apply.
    
    FAITH is what religion, all religion, is about.

      Hi Jeff,
    
        First things first...
    
        I'm really sorry about the loss of your daughter and the 
        pain you must still feel.  I hope God is bringing home
        to your heart some spiritual growth that some blessing
        can result.
    
        As to the gospel...
    
        I believe that righteousness comes by faith in a revelation
        of God's love.  And that is the ONLY way it comes.
    
        I do not believe the full gospel has been revealed to anybody
        and the greatest evidence of the reception of that gospel by
        anyone is the character that such gospel produces in the
        receiver.  The standard is Christ.   The gospel is inclusive
        of an intelligent understanding of God's love.  I think we all
        fall far short of that.  The cross, as presently understood, is
        largely shadow and not very image.
    
        I don't think a lot of your gospel because I sometimes don't
        think a lot of your words.  They come accross as very caustic.
        Love is too often not seen and love is the product of the true
        gospel.  By one's deeds and ones words, ye shall know one.
    
        When I see a different Jeff Benson, my ears will perk up and
        I'll start REALLY listening to the gospel he espouses.
    
    						Tony
                                                                  

| <<< Note 382.160 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>



| That's right...its the ol' guessing game, God's big practical joke on us all..

	Why does it have to be a practical joke when it more than likely it's a
learning experience. As we get to know Him we all grow and learn many new
things. Thoughts and beliefs that we once had can change. How is that any
different than Him knowing the truth, and we can't be 100% sure that we have it
right? It's ALWAYS going to be that way because we are human.


Glen

| <<< Note 382.162 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| I find it interesting Glen, that you fall back on the interpretation argument 
| frequently...yet you never have an alternative interpretation to offer!

	Jack, you can do better than that I hope. I have on many occassions in
many notesfiles given what I thought something meant. Nice try though. 

    
>        I'm really sorry about the loss of your daughter and the 
>        pain you must still feel.  I hope God is bringing home
>        to your heart some spiritual growth that some blessing
>        can result.
 
	Thank you, Tony.  Yes, God has spiritually blessed me tremendously as
        a result of trusting Him through her death.   
        
>	As to the gospel...
    
>        I believe that righteousness comes by faith in a revelation
>        of God's love.  And that is the ONLY way it comes.
    
>        I do not believe the full gospel has been revealed to anybody...

	Right.  And this is where either your own personal theology, or 
	SDA theology or a combination of both has led you off the path
        of truth, according to the Bible.
    
>        I don't think a lot of your gospel because I sometimes don't
>        think a lot of your words.  They come accross as very caustic.
>        Love is too often not seen and love is the product of the true
>        gospel.  By one's deeds and ones words, ye shall know one.
 
	There's no such thing as "your" gospel or "my" gospel.  There is
        one gospel, that of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible.
   
>        When I see a different Jeff Benson, my ears will perk up and
>        I'll start REALLY listening to the gospel he espouses.
    
>    						Tony
 
	I suggest a better tact would be to throw out the SDA stuff and
        submit yourself to the standard and authority of the Bible.

| <<< Note 382.167 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| There's no such thing as "your" gospel or "my" gospel. There is one gospel, 
| that of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible.

	And you both believe you have the correct interpretation of that
gospel, but it's quite clear that your interpretations are different. 



Glen

    Can you crucify a SNARF?  :*)
    

    No. Snarfers, however, are open game.

| There's no such thing as "your" gospel or "my" gospel. There is one gospel, 
| that of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible.

>	And you both believe you have the correct interpretation of that
>gospel, but it's quite clear that your interpretations are different. 

>Glen
    
    	So what?  Criticism of each position, using the Bible as standard,
    will demonstrate the correctness of one and the error of the other. 
    False interpretations will be eliminated.
    
    jeff

    
    This string is starting to remind me of John Belushi's "cheeburger,
    cheeburger, pepsi" skit.
    
    

|    	So what?  Criticism of each position, using the Bible as standard,
|    will demonstrate the correctness of one and the error of the other. 
|    False interpretations will be eliminated.
|    
|    jeff

    It must feel good to know you're right eh?

    How laughable.
    
    Glenn

    .171
    
    > Criticism of each position, using the Bible as standard,
    > will demonstrate the correctness of one and the error of the other.
    > False interpretations will be eliminated.
    
    Using the Bible as standard, Archbishop Ussher (1581-1656) determined
    that the universe was created at something like 9:30 a.m., Sunday,
    October 23, 4004 BCE.  9:30 a.m. in what time zone?  Including or
    omitting the 11-day skip in converting to the Gregorian calendar in
    1583?  And how does this explain bristlecone pines with more annual
    growth rings than that date would allow, or creosote bushes whose
    generation circles are far larger than can be explaind by an age of
    less than 11,000 years?  The only explanation that fits both the facts
    and the calculated age of the universe is that God is playing a joke on
    us, lying by creating plants ab origine with thousands of annual growth
    rings.
    
    The Bible is NOT the only standard by which things discussed in the
    Bible can be judged.  This is why the Jews have relied on rabbinical
    interpretation and why the Catholic Christian churches have relied on
    tradition and theological interpretation.

    
    er Dick, where do you store all the data you spew forth?? I'm
    constantly amazed at the amount of knowledge that is stored in your
    brain. Wish I knew just a quarter of what you knew.
    
    Mark

    It doesn't really matter.  The fact is that the Archbishop spoke
    prematurely because he didn't account for all the facts you mentioned. 
    Hence as Jeff said, pure truth will reveal failure.
    
    There are outside historical aspects that need to be considered in
    anything.
    
    -Jack

    Mark, I'm cursed with a very retentive memory - not my doing.  I say
    cursed rather than blessed because there are some things I'd like very
    much to forget.
    
    pi = 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230...
    
    Memorized in high school because my bro knew it to 50 - so I went to
    65.  Lot of use, isn't it?

    .176
    
    > There are outside historical aspects that need to be considered...
    
    EXACTLY!  The Bible is not a self-contained and self-proving document. 
    To say that it is such, and that it alone can be used as a standard to
    prove or disprove interpretations of it, is absurd.

    
    Binder, 
    
    The gospel of Jesus Christ is revealed in the Bible.  If there are two
    contradictory claims or interpretations concerning the gospel of Jesus 
    Christ, the Bible can adjudicate between them.  However, you will most
    always find that SDAs, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and other such
    groups do not (in practice) appeal to the Bible as there standard rather 
    to latter-day saints and their writings.  This is largely the source of
    their folly and error in interpretation of the Bible.
    
    jeff

    
>    EXACTLY!  The Bible is not a self-contained and self-proving document. 
>    To say that it is such, and that it alone can be used as a standard to
>    prove or disprove interpretations of it, is absurd.
    
    	
    Exactly poppycock, Binder.  The original issue is not "The Bible" and
    all it contains but the gospel of Jesus Christ.  You have needlessly
    and predictably expanded the argument beyond its original definition.
    I think you like to hear yourself bellow.
    
    jeff

      Hi Jeff,
    
        By 'your' gospel, I meant the one you believe to be the true
        gospel.  I know there is only one gospel.
    
        You speak of throwing out the SDA stuff, but there is no
        content given aside from these words, so they don't really
        do me any good.
                                                    
      Hi Glen,
    
        I think you are echoing one thing I agree strongly about.
    
        1 Corin 8:2
        If any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as 
        he ought to know.
    
        This side of the 2nd coming, I don't believe we will ever KNOW
        that we have the full gospel.  I believe the last generation
        WILL know it, but they won't know that they know it.  Of course,
        Jesus will know when they know it.
    
        Just one of those paradoxes.  The more one actually does know, 
        the more one has an inner conviction OF NOT KNOWING.  The less
        one actually does know, the more one has an inner conviction 
        that he really does know.
    
        Kind of a twist on the Pharisee and the publican.  The Pharisee
        might look at others and say, "Lord, I am so glad I am not like
        him.  He is so far from understanding the gospel!  But, I
        understand it!"  And all the while Jesus in Rev 3 (talking to
        Laodicaea) says, "You know not, you are naked, you are blind, you
        are wretched..."  Meanwhile the publican says, "Have mercy on me
        Lord for I understand so little."  To which I suspect the Lord 
        would reply, "Ahhhh, finally a teachable spirit!  Finally, someone
        becoming ready to just have the truth poured right into him!!"
    
        Oh may we realize how little we actually do know.  May we allow
        the Lord to humble our sense of how much we actually do know.
    
    						Tony

    re: .179                                
    
      I appeal to the Bible.  But, yes, I believe Ellen White was
      a prophet.
    
      For every one minute I read Ellen White, I read the Bible 
      a thousand minutes.   Currently I am memorizing the book of
      Hebrews for example (NKJV) and am into the 5th chapter.  I 
      am presently too immersed in the scriptures to find time for
      Ellen White.
    
      And I won't set to prove a single thing I believe from anything
      save the Bible.
    
      Your statement implies that even if God did raise a prophet, we
      ought not listen.
    
      Great logic...unless of course He does raise one.
    
    							Tony

The things I like about religion is that belief in a deity 
is never adulterated by one's ego and one's belief that another 
one's belief is false because it's not the same as one's belief 
is always acceptable.

That's really what this string is about:  ego, ego, ego.

    .180
    
    > Exactly poppycock, Binder.  The original issue is not "The Bible" and
    > all it contains but the gospel of Jesus Christ.
    
    Which version of the gospel might that be?  The one that contains the
    incident of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), which
    incident does not appear in any of the earliest extant manuscripts but
    magically shows up in later ones?  Is that incident one with a good
    message?  Yes.  Did it really happen?  Probably not.
    
    There is no ONE version of the gospel, Jeff, so there will ALWAYS be
    room for differing interpretations.

    Actually Dick, I was thinking more in the lines of...
    
    Scripture:  The Laodicean church was referred to as lukewarm
    
    Outside:  Laodicea was known for its cold mountain water and hot
    springs in the valley.
    
    Scripture: Corinthian women were told to go to church with a covering
    over their head.
    
    Outside:  Temple prostitutes had their heads shaved and when converted,
    were asked by Paul to cover their head to honor God.  
    (I heard something about this.  It may not be 100% accurate)
    
    -Jack

    Ego has nothing to do with my participation here.  I simply made
    comments about the atonement and how it applied today...and was
    consequently told by the Soapbox elitists that I was out of place,
    misinformed, and that my knowledge was sorely lacking.  But that's
    neither here nor there!!!
    
    
    -Jack

    
    Don't fret, Jack.  Egocentricity, bigotry, intolerance, hatefulness,
    prejiduce, etc. is today's pagan rallying cry toward those valuing
    truth, both rational and moral.  The age of reason has largely passed.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 382.171 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| So what?  Criticism of each position, using the Bible as standard, 

	Well.... if you both believe it to be the standard, then it is one you
both can use. Otherwise, it only works for one, and can only back that one
persons belief, not the other.

| will demonstrate the correctness of one and the error of the other.

	if you both come out with the same interpretation.

| False interpretations will be eliminated.

	You may deem something to be false when in fact it may be true. But
while you're believing as you do now, it remains false. What God shows you down
the road, may be different than your belief now.




Glen

    Glen:
    
    God revealed enough to us to make a decision.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 382.187 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Egocentricity, bigotry, intolerance, hatefulness, prejiduce, etc. is today's 
| pagan rallying cry toward those valuing truth, both rational and moral.  

	Jeff, where in this string has this happened? I mean really happened,
not where you er... interpreted it to be that way to find out later you were
wrong. Because if there were no instances of this, then what you said was a
smoke screen bow out. 

| The age of reason has largely passed.

	nah..... you just gotta put some effort into it. 

| <<< Note 382.189 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| -< Don't be silly, Glen >-

	Good diversion..... now tell me why.

>those valuing
>    truth, both rational and moral.

Just can't help yourself, can you?

Must be nice to be so self-assured in your beliefs
that you're able to confuse them with absolute truth.

Ego.

| <<< Note 382.190 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| God revealed enough to us to make a decision.

	Jack, even in your reply you seem to be aknowledging the fact that
there is so much more that has not been revealed. How many times have you heard
someone who did not know what a certain part of Scripture meant come back with,
"it hasn't been revealed yet". But you can say He revealed enough to make a
decision? Hmmm... now that I think about it, you may be right. But the decision
that is being made may not be the correct one.

    Glen:
    
    The bandwagon started with Mr. Topaz' early remarks inferring
    prejudice and hatred.  I find this another typical whining session 
    that most liberal and some moderate thinkers fall back on.  
    
    Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......aaaaaaaaa....WWWWWWaAAAAAAaaaa
    aaaaaaaa
    
    

| <<< Note 382.193 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>


| Must be nice to be so self-assured in your beliefs that you're able to 
| confuse them with absolute truth.

	BINGO!  GREAT ANSWER!!!! 

    I resent this response Glen.  I have nothing I want to prove about
    myself here!!
    
    

| <<< Note 382.197 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| I resent this response Glen.  

	Which one(s) Jack?

| I have nothing I want to prove about myself here!!

	This is why I am asking which one. I didn't see one that stated
anything in this fashion.


Glen

    
    
    Not really Gle, if one has the faith, then it is absolute truth to that
    person.  One might or might not agree, and that too is their choice.
    
    
    Mike

>Just can't help yourself, can you?

>Must be nice to be so self-assured in your beliefs
>that you're able to confuse them with absolute truth.

>Ego.
    
    Ego,
    
    It must be awful to be awash in a sea of relativity where 2+2 might
    equal 5 one day, four the next, and 0 next week.  It must be awful to
    have to make a decision in life never knowing whether it is wise,
    unwise, dangerous, stupid, etc.  It must be frustrating to find oneself
    in agreement with Glen, the epitome of lost identity.
    
    jeff

>    It must be awful to be awash in a sea of relativity where 2+2 might
>    equal 5 one day, four the next, and 0 next week.  It must be awful to
 
     A sea of relativity?  Ah, so that's what you fear.  No wonder you've locked
     yourself up in that safe little box of god-like moral superiority.

>    It must be frustrating to find oneself
>    in agreement with Glen, the epitome of lost identity.

     Why attack Glen?  Oh, must be an ego thing.
    
   

 
>     A sea of relativity?  Ah, so that's what you fear.  No wonder you've locked
>     yourself up in that safe little box of god-like moral superiority.

    I do not personally fear relativity for it has no hold on me. I do fear
    for the society whose base is moral and rational relativity. 
    And I pity the person who embraces it.  But let me make it clear that
    it is God's grace that has saved me personally from this, not my
    ingenuity, superiority or up-bringing.  I too once was a slave to the 
    relativistic mindset of our modern culture but have been freed by the 
    truth.  You've heard the biblical phrase, "the truth will set you free", 
    haven't you?  It's true and I'm a living example.
    
>    It must be frustrating to find oneself
>    in agreement with Glen, the epitome of lost identity.

>>     Why attack Glen?  Oh, must be an ego thing.
  
    I'm not "attacking" Glen.  I'm making a point.  Glen is a perfect
    example of the result of honing the relativistic mindset.  It can
    happen to you...maybe it has.  The final result is nonsense.
    
    jeff
   

| <<< Note 382.199 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>



| Not really Gle, if one has the faith, then it is absolute truth to that
| person.  One might or might not agree, and that too is their choice.

	Who is this Gle person? "-)  Mike, basically we're saying the same
thing AND the same thing that someone else wrote a few back. We can all say
that our beliefs are true. But no one can say that their beliefs are Absolute. 

| <<< Note 382.200 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| >Must be nice to be so self-assured in your beliefs
| >that you're able to confuse them with absolute truth.

| >Ego.

| It must be awful to be awash in a sea of relativity where 2+2 might equal 5 
| one day, four the next, and 0 next week.  

	Jeff, you seem to believe that because one has a different belief on
any part of religion or scripture than you do, that all of a sudden things
change constantly. It doesn't work that way for everyone Jeff. But you knew
that. Talk about lumping everyone into the same catagory... hope you never
complain about people throwing all Christians into the weirdo fanatic catagory. 

| It must be awful to have to make a decision in life never knowing whether it 
| is wise, unwise, dangerous, stupid, etc.  

	Jeff, you do it almost everyday. So doesn't everyone else. Unless
you're telling us that since you found Him, you've never made an unwise,
dangerous, stupid, etc decision. Are you stating this Jeff? If not, then again,
you're still in the same boat. The only difference is you keep thinking it
can't happen.

| It must be frustrating to find oneself in agreement with Glen, the epitome 
| of lost identity.

	You wasted a good snarf for this??? Wow.... is it really me who has
lost their identity Jeff? Think about it before you answer now. 


Glen
| jeff

    
    I am snarfless and proud of it!
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 382.202 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| I'm not "attacking" Glen.  

	He is correct.

| I'm making a point.  

	Yes you are.

| Glen is a perfect example of the result of honing the relativistic mindset.  

	Now this is the point he is making. He is stating an untruth. My
beliefs don't float around as you state, they are the same as they were last
year. But you knew that.....

Glen

    ZZ     Why attack Glen?  Oh, must be an ego thing.
    
    
    No...I just cannot tolerate stupidity!
    
    -Jack

    You must have one helluva time with mirrors.

                  <<< Note 382.206 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| Glen is a perfect example of the result of honing the relativistic mindset.  
>
>	Now this is the point he is making. He is stating an untruth. My
>beliefs don't float around as you state, they are the same as they were last
>year. But you knew that.....

    	Relativism doesn't mean that your beliefs change.

| <<< Note 382.207 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| ZZ     Why attack Glen?  Oh, must be an ego thing.

| No...I just cannot tolerate stupidity!

	Jack, you really don't read your own notes, do you......

    Glen:
    
    Alot of times I write notes just to annoy people.  In this case, I find 
    this Oliver Twisted by inferring there is an ego problem here.  I don't
    see it.
    
    -Jack

	Well, I have to admit that you're very good at annoying people. Not at
making points, but at annoying people. :-)

      Jeff,
    
        The basic problem I have with your content is the assumption
        that you know it all.  Heb. 10:1-4 states that the insuffi-
        ciency of animal sacrifices is that the people who sacrificed
        them, after doing so, still had a remembrance of sin.
    
        Time and time again the POWER and the EFFICACY of the message
        of the cross is that it can transform lives.
    
        I believe one of two possibilities with this.  Either we have
        seen the cross for all the truth that it embodies AND we are
        (thus) so perfected in character that we don't even remember
        sin OR we haven't seen all that much of the cross and thus
        we are still sinners.
    
        There is one criteria for the question, "Show me the FULL
        gospel."  That criteria is that those who proclaim it reflect
        the character of Christ.
    
        If one already believes he has the full gospel, he is unteachable
        as the spirit of being teachable requires (in part) the humility
        of attitude that believes there is still more, much more to
        learn.  This is the classic definition of Laodicaea.  "Lord,
        I already KNOW the gospel!"  To which Jesus replies, "Thou
        knowest not."
    
        If one at least doesn't believe he has all the answers, Jesus
        can continue to work with Him.  Can teach him more for He comes
        to the cross believing He has more to learn.
    
        The truth sets free, but free from what?
    
        I believe its from sin and if you are still a sinner, there's 
        still more truth to drink in; truth that can free you yet more
        fully.
    
    							Tony

    re .212
    
    Take it to topic 35.
    
    Or 204.

	Tony, VERY good note! Thanks for posting it. 

	Joe, get a life.

       re .195:
       
       Now, Jack, you're being a bit disingenuous by closing your eyes to
       the source of the discussion in this string.  Viz., Brother
       Benson's screed in .7, a response that serves to spin his own base
       note into a Challengeresque trajectory by his fiat that Brother
       Barbieri's beliefs were UnTrue.
       
       Binder hit it on the head in saying that the very nature of
       spiritual belief lies in faith, and faith is not subject to proof.  
       The problem arises when anyone decides that his faith really ought
       to be the faith of everyone else; the hateful Benson even decides
       (.187) that those who show the intolerant of being intolerant must
       surely be pagan.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    
    Have a nice day, Mr. Topaz!
    
    jeff

<---- Jeff, what Mr. Topaz said about your .187 seems to fit quite well. 

    Jeff is right though.  The liberal left in this country have this nasty
    habit of hiding behind a facade of tolerence, caring, and
    synsytyvyty...all phoney of course.  Sometimes it is sadly carried over
    to religious issues and frankly, I have little tolerence for this sort
    of whining.
    
    Remember Glen, without poverty and despair, the liberals in this
    country have no platform or constituency.  It is not in the interests
    of the likes of Maxine Waters and Gephardt to solve the poverty issue.
    Stop falling for it!
    
    -Jack

    The church has had ample time to prove its worth to western society. So
    far as I can tell, the track record hasn't been very good, and as far
    as corruption goes, the church has put forth the most perverse kind.
    Men and women of God claiming to be doing the work of the Lord all the
    while stealing money and abusing the trust that has been given them.
    The harm that is caused by one of these will always overshadow the good
    that many do. If the church were not so prone to failure perhaps the
    tendrils of government would not be so intertwined into our daily
    lives.

    Glenn

    Unfortunately Glenn, the church will most likely never meet your
    expectations becauuse although Christ is THE ROCK on which the church
    is built, the church is in the stewardship of frail sinful humans.
    
    -Jack

    
    <------
    
    Which "church" are you refering to when you write:
    
     "...the church..."  ??
    

    aNDY:
    
    Not sure if you meant Glenn or myself.  My reference is to the church
    mentioned in Matthew 16, ...and upon this rock I will build my church,
    and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
    
    My reference is to the church comprised strictly of all regenerated
    believers and not a particular denomination.
    
    -Jack

    Surely some spotless and wrinkleless evidence would have cropped up by
    now......

    
    Sorry Jack... my <------ was meant for Glenn...
    
    Glenn??
    

    Oh I meant the invisible church no one can see of course. The one
    without spot or wrinkle, the bride of Christ, the 5 virgins with the
    oil in their lamps. 

    Glenn

    
    Doesn't sound like the one you were describing in .220
    
    Or was that someone else talking?
    

    The one in .226 does not exist as far as I'm concerned. If it does, it
    truly is invisible in every sense of the word.

I thought the full quote was (Christ speaking), "Thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build my church [etc.]"

    Only Catholics look at it that way.
    
    HTH
    
    Unless you want to get into a petra vs. petros debate.

    Sure...why not.
    
    Petros - Peter (Small rock or stone)
    
    Petra - Foundation rock (Rock of Gerbralter, Manhattan, etc.)
    
    Thou art Petros and upon this Petra will I build my church!
    
    "For no other foundation can any man lay than that which is Christ
    Jesus."
    
    -Jack

    Are you saying that the Vatican should be in Manhattan?

    Sure why not!!

Have we a sticky point betwixt Rome and the rest of Christianity here, then?

Sorry, but Jesus said it in Aramaic, naming Simon "Kephas" which, unlike
"Petros" does not mean "small".

/john

    So, who has the keys again?

    Before Jesus states this he says, "Flesh and blood HATH NOT revealed
    this to you but my Father which is in Heaven"  It is also very possible
    that Jesus was referring to Peters testimony and not Peter himself.
    
    The Hebrew, Cephas, was to my understanding to mean a small stone or
    pebble.  But even if it isn't, there has to be a distinguishing
    difference between Kephas and Petra; since the Psalmist David states
    that The Lord is My Rock and My Salvation!
    
    -Jack

    But the Psalms weren't written in Greek. So you're comparing golf balls
    to condoms.
    
    So Peter got to wear the funny hat first?

"I am a rock. I am an Island."
	- Paul simon and Art Garfunkel

    So it IS Manhattan then!

    Good point.  It would be fair and right to get a Hebrew concordance and
    see what the word Petra translates to in Hebrew.  Then see if the Psalm
    has that word!
    
    -Jack

The Psalm uses the word tzur (tzuri, actually, meaning "my Rock".)

    So, you really can't compare the two can you?

    ZZ    So, you really can't compare the two can you?
    
    
    Are you asking me?
    
    No, I can't.  I don't have a Greek or Hebrew concordance.
    
    -Jack 

    
    Too Delbalso's question/comment: yes, there is a major difference
    between Catholics and Protestants on the issue of Peter's role. 
    Catholics have used it to assert their authority throughout the ages. 
    Protestants strictly deny any such authority was given to Peter
    specifically.  Much of Catholic heirarchy/authority (the pope, for
    example) would probably not exist without this misinterpretation of the
    passage.
    
    jeff

The "thou are kephas, and upon this kephas I found my church" is only
one of several passages which are used to establish the primacy of the
Petrine office.  Another very important one is "Feed my sheep".

And then there's tradition and development of doctrine.

/john

I don't know or care what the petros vs. petra controversy is, but I don't see
how having a concordance helps.  There are no occurrences of either word in
the Hebrew Bible, and there are no occurrences of tzur in the NT.  A concordance
just lists all the occurrences of words in a book.  Any translation it happens
to have is incidental.

>    Too Delbalso's question/comment: yes, there is a major difference
>    between Catholics and Protestants on the issue of Peter's role. 

So, which "side" on this issue is "right"? The Catholic "side" or the
"side" of the rest of Christianity? Which way did Christ actually
intend?

Well, in my not so humble Anglican opinion he meant for Peter and his
successors to hold the primacy within the Church.

And this means being a servant to the whole church, not an autocratic boss.
One of the Pope's titles is "Servant of the Servants of God".

On the other hand, some sort of doctrinal center is needed to "confirm the
brethren".  This is lacking outside the Roman Communion.

/john

    
    The Protestants are right, of course, John's comments notwithstanding. 
    I think the results of Romanism's interpretation is enough to discredit
    their interpretation.  It is this interpretation which caused them to
    seek temporal power which has led to their greatest crimes, imo.  The
    abuses of the Catholic church over the ages cannot be attributed only
    to sinful men.  Their religion is fundamentally flawed.
    
    jeff

    Which way did Christ intend?
    
    Well, you must pray and ask the Holy Spirit to shed light on the
    scriptures, then you will know.

Watching them squabble is much more interesting, though, Glenn.

    Gerald:
    
    Sometimes a concordance can be of great assistance.  As an example.
    
    The greek word for sorcery is Pharmakia.  This is where we get the name
    pharmacy.  This would imply God was condemning the use of drugs as He
    condemned sorcery.
    
    At the same time, Apothecary is also greek for Pharmacy...correct?  I
    don't know...I was just trying to think of an example.  This way when
    somebody comes along and condemns drug stores as evil, you can pull out
    your concordance and say, "No dummy, God condemns Pharmakia, not
    apothecaries!!!!!"
    
    -Jack

 ZZZ   Watching them squabble is much more interesting, though, Glenn.
    
    No squabbling here my friend....you asked!
    
    -Jack

    .250
    
    > The Protestants are right, of course...
    
    Oh, of COURSE!  We're so blessed to have this wisdom from on high,
    given to Protestants, none of whom lived within a thousand years of
    Jesus, let alone knew him personally.  Of course all those people who
    walked the roads of Galilee and Judea with him and then laid the
    foundation of the Roman Church couldn't possibly have gotten anything
    right!  How could we have been so blind as to think they might have had
    a better view of things than Jeff Benson!
    
    > Their religion is fundamentally flawed.
    
    I think you, sir, ought to be treated to a good kick in the fundament.

>    The greek word for sorcery is Pharmakia.  This is where we get the name
>    pharmacy.  This would imply God was condemning the use of drugs as He
>    condemned sorcery.

Jack, I'm convinced.  I'm going to start picketing CVS.

>    No squabbling here my friend....you asked!
Jack,
   Please follow along. Check /john's .249. Then check Jeff's .250. Then
   tell me what's happening.

   And then, double check your Greek root on apothecary.

    This can all be solved with prayer.
    
    So off your fundaments and on your knees!

    Dick:
    
    So I take it your Catholic then?  If not, do you agree on the Papacy of
    Rome?  I'd be interested to see if you answer this or chicken out!
    
    Jack.....AAAAAAAA...HAAAAAAAA.....NYAAAAAHHH....that's why I put the
    disclaimer in that I didn't know what apothecary meant.  I was simply
    presenting a crude example.  But nice try to discredit me....
    
    Raspberries with thumbs in ears!! :-)

    > The greek word for sorcery is Pharmakia.  This is where we get the name
    > pharmacy.  This would imply God was condemning the use of drugs as He
    > condemned sorcery.
    
    Only to a cretin who didn't bother to investigate the real meaning of
    the word, which investigation would discover that pharmakeia as related
    to drugs meant the use of magic potions, generally associated with
    idolatry, not the administration of healthful medicative substances.

    .259
    
    Jack, I'm getting tired of your rudely confrontational style.  I have
    better things to do than defend myself against slanderous attacks by
    uneducated self-righteous fools.

    Slanderous Attacks??!!!!!  You got balls Dick....real balls!  You just
    called me a Cretin and you have the nads to say I'm confrontational???
    
    Stop being a wuss and answer the question you philistine!!!
    
    -Jack

    So, Philistines have four of those puppies?

    I have just had the concept of chafing redefined for me.

    No...it just annoys me that Dick tells Jeff he needs a kick in the arse
    but when the rubber hits the road Dick might very well feel the same
    way and just doesn't want to go out on a limb.  
    
    Sometimes truth is very painful to get to...and alot of times it can
    involve stepping on peoples toes...even people we respect.  
    
    There are many people...some in notes that I highly respect yet at the
    same time I disagree with them on this issue...so what?  Just deal with
    it!!
    
    -Jack

    .262
    
    I did not call you a cretin, Jack.  I said that pharmakeia means
    [illicit] drugs to a cretin who didn't investigate the full meaning of
    the word.  If you think the shoe fits, that's your problem, not mine.
    
    I will answer what questions I choose to answer.  Yours, it is clear,
    is designed to elicit information with which you can further belabor
    me, and I do not believe I wish to play the role of masochist today.

    NEW BRIEFS PEOPLE, NEW BRIEFS!!

    Is that what one of the thieves said?

    
    So like Jeff, are you saying that if we are Catholic, we are following
    a fundementally flawed religion? On, the other hand if you are
    Protestant, you are in the right religion?? 
    
    I truly hope, that I misread your reply, but if I didn't then you
    really are a sick puppy.
    
    Mark

    I misunderstood and apologize for that.  I thought you were calling me
    a cretin for putting in an entry I didn't fully research.   
    
    Rgds.,
    
    - ack

Ecclesiasticus 38:1-12, King James Version

Honour a physician with the honour due unto him for the uses which ye may
have of him: for the Lord hath created him. For of the most High cometh
healing, and he shall receive honour of the king. The skill of the
physician shall lift up his head: and in the sight of great men he shall be
in admiration.

The Lord hath created medicines out of the earth; and he that is wise will
not abhor them. Was not the water made sweet with wood, that the virtue
thereof might be known? And he hath given men skill, that he might be
honoured in his marvellous works. With such doth he heal [men,] and taketh
away their pains. Of such doth the apothecary make a confection; and of his
works there is no end; and from him is peace over all the earth,

My son, in thy sickness be not negligent: but pray unto the Lord, and he
will make thee whole. Leave off from sin, and order thine hands aright, and
cleanse thy heart from all wickedness. Give a sweet savour, and a memorial
of fine flour; and make a fat offering, as not being. Then give place to
the physician, for the Lord hath created him: let him not go from thee, for
thou hast need of him.

  ZZZ      So like Jeff, are you saying that if we are Catholic, we are
  ZZZ      following
    ZZZ     a fundementally flawed religion? On, the other hand if you are
   ZZZ     Protestant, you are in the right religion?? 
    
    No, I didn't say that (Are you asking me?)  We all must follow the Lord
    as the Lord calls us to or follow God as we feel God wants us to.  Keep
    in mind that belonging to a particular church DOES NOT a christian one
    make!  Christianity is based on faith in the Son of God.  Where we
    choose to fellowship is not germane to ones salvation.  However, it
    will affect ones outlook on the nature of God.
        
  ZZ      I truly hope, that I misread your reply, but if I didn't then you
  ZZ      really are a sick puppy.
    
    You probably did misread a reply I made but just for kicks, let's
    assume you didn't.  I would like to know where you get off calling
    somebody a sick puppy...considering we are now in the touchy feeley
    world of tolerance.  Are you saying that because I don't fit into your
    paradigm of how one believes that I am a sick puppy?  Interesting.
    
    -Jack

    Watch it, /john, you know that Protestants deny the canonicity of
    Ecclesiasticus.

    
    So Jack, since when is your name Jeff?

    That's why I wrote (are you asking me??).
    
    -Meaty

    I just can't believe what I'm reading.

    A better example of titular Christians I've never seen.
    Arguing about which is the "right" faith, indeed.  How
    disgusting.  This first-hand view of the "love of Christ"
    has turned me from agnostic to atheist.  

    My eyes have always been open; thank you for showing me the light.

    I'm not kidding, either.
    \john

    John, stop acting spineless.  If you choose to justify how you believe,
    it is YOUR decision and nobody made you do anything.
    
    Secondly, I find it amazing the inescapable ability for people to once
    again to allow emotion to overtake their ability for reason and logic.
    I just find it amazing that here in the box you have allowed yourself
    to bowl over like a jellyfish...I'm reminded of the haggard old lady
    here.....tapping her foot and arms folded.  I feel like I am amongst a
    consortium of 80 year old ladies.  I haven't seen the likes of this
    since Aunt Bea and the Ladies Auxilliary.
    
    And I'm not joking either!
    
    -Jack

 ZZ   Secondly, I find it amazing the inescapable ability for people to
 ZZ   once again to allow emotion to overtake their ability for reason and
 ZZ   logic.
    
    Five prepositions in one sentence is not good!!!

re: .276 (Jack)

Well, I guess I'm not surprised you read into my reply all sorts of
things I didn't say nor imply; it goes right along with your "i know
what faith is right" attitude.

I think you have a lot of gall to talk about "reason and logic," too.
Your inability to separate opinion from fact is probably at fault here.

My logic and reason are as solid as any; what you and Jeff provide are
the bad examples that hammer the point home.  

\john

 ZZZ     -< Ah, `spineless'.  How Christian. >-
    
    Oh...and who said it was unchristian to make a statement like above?  
    John the Baptist called the most religious people of Israel a brood of
    vipers.  So let's put this fallacy to rest.
    
    Secondly, your first reply, again, is an example of Thought Police
    syndrome that rears its ugly head in Soapbox when religion is
    discussed.  Of course you read right over my reply a few back stating
    that where one goes to church is not germane to their salvation.  Yes,
    that's what I said and then you come out with a blanket statement
    saying I claim to know what is right and everybody else is wrong! 
    That's what gets my goat John...it is a statement that shows your reply
    to be one of disdain.  As far as you being an atheist, again John, that
    was your choice.  Don't try to lay any guilt trips on anybody because
    you decided to become an atheist.  The Word of God is available to all
    who seek Him.  Do I know it all?  Most definitely not...but don't get
    all bent out of shape when I challenge others why they believe the way
    they do.  Free country mon!!!! 
    
    Sorry John but I have little tolerance for the foot tapping and the
    nagging when peoples boats get rocked.  Typical for politics and faith
    issues but there you have it!  
    
    -Jack

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 382.272                   JESUS' CRUCIFIXION                     272 of 279
SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot"          2 lines  17-APR-1995 17:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Watch it, /john, you know that Protestants deny the canonicity of
    Ecclesiasticus.
    
    That's right Binder.  And for good reason!  Of course such logic would
    probably offend you.  You're still fuming 'cause SJ Gould's writings
    weren't included in the biblical canon.
    
    jeff

Ya know, the translators of the King James Bible, while not considering
Ecclesiasticus to be useful for doctrinal discussions with the Jews
(who had removed the book from the Septuagint), did translate it,
did read it in church, and did consider it useful "for example of
life and instruction of manners".

/john

| <<< Note 382.219 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Jeff is right though. The liberal left in this country have this nasty habit 
| of hiding behind a facade of tolerence, caring, and synsytyvyty...all phoney 
| of course.  

	Wow... talk about going over the edge Jack. How can you make such a
statement without laughing? It's pure bull, but hey, what else have ya got to
go on. I mean, I'm part of the left, but I'm not phoney about how I feel about
things.

| Remember Glen, without poverty and despair, the liberals in this country have 
| no platform or constituency.  

	But with the right around, we got plenty of poor people for future
generations to come.

| Stop falling for it!

	The same could be said for you and a lot of your religious beliefs. But
would it be reality? No. But somehow you don't see that for others....


Glen

| <<< Note 382.221 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Unfortunately Glenn, the church will most likely never meet your expectations 
| becauuse although Christ is THE ROCK on which the church is built, the church 
| is in the stewardship of frail sinful humans.

	Funny how you can be so sympathetic about Christians, but rip everyone
who you consider liberal to shreads. Jack, stop falling for the churches ploys!


Glen

    This is the conundrum I'm always faced with:

    Q: How can I see Christ?  
    A: You can see him in his followers.

    Q: But His followers fail to follow his teachings so now what do I do?
    A: Well, you must look to Christ as your example.

    Oh, so, how can I see Christ?

    ...........

<---- by watching Baseball Tonight on ESPN like I'm doing Right now!

You see Christ in all people whether they follow his teachings all the time
or not.

The world would be a better place if more would do so more often.

	"Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving
	 your neighbor as yourself?"
	"I will, with God's help."

/john

       God's GooseSteppers, Benson and Martin are at it again: their
       faith is truer than yours or mine.
       
       Hey, Jeff and Jack, here's something I always wondered about,
       maybe you can help me out on this:  
           
           � I've heard some people--some people who often sound very
             much like the two of you--say that God is all-powerful and
             all-knowing, and that God created man.  Do you guys agree with
             that?
           
           � I've heard some people--some people who often sound very
             much like the two of you--say that Man has a sinful nature,
             as evidenced by the apple scene.  Do you guys agree with
             that, too?
       
       Now here's my quandry: if these statements are true, then God had
       to have known that Adam and Eve would choose to sin in Eden.  (He
       would have to know first, because He's omniscient, and second,
       because He's omnipotent and created them.  That is, as part of
       Man's creation, God would have created Man's decision-making
       process.)  So, how do you reconcile God creating and intending Man
       to have a sinful nature?  (Do you perceive Man as part of some
       twisted high-school science project in which God sits back and
       laughs Himself silly watching Man try to undo that which can't be
       undone?)
       
       --Mr Topaz

    
    re: 3271
    
    Jack, Unless your name is Jeff Benson, which I highly doubt, my reply
    in 3268 was meant for him. HTH. You both come off mightier than thou,
    and your opinions are right, everyone elses are wrong. While, I believe
    in God, and consider myself a Christian, I certainly don't preach about
    it in the box, and I also believe EVERYONE is entitled to their own
    opinions and beliefs. You, on the other hand, believe its your
    Christian duty to force feed your beliefs on to everyone else. Why
    don't both you and Benson grow up.
    
    Mark

    .280
    
    Jeff, you just got yourself added to my kill list.  Say hi to Jack, who
    earned his place therein only hours earlier with .262.

    "kill list" ??

>Ya know, the translators of the King James Bible, while not considering
>Ecclesiasticus to be useful for doctrinal discussions with the Jews
>(who had removed the book from the Septuagint), did translate it,
>did read it in church, and did consider it useful "for example of
>life and instruction of manners".

>/john
    
    John,  I have no quarrel with you, brother.  And I do not want to
    unnecessarily travel down the path of a theological discussion which
    would be mostly wasted in this forum.  The canonnicity of the Apocrypha
    has been debated for centuries.  I could easily provide the argument
    against including it and it would be convincing to most everyone.  You
    realize that extra-biblical revelation was not accepted as authoritative
    by the Reformers.  That is my view and probably most Protestants' view
    on the Apocrypha.  Remember, sola scriptura?! 
    
    jeff

    .290
    
    A kill list is a list of names that a usenet newsreader consults before
    posting a message to the local file.  If you're on my kill list, no
    posting of yours will even APPEAR in my list of new postings.
    
    Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a kill list for Notes.  But
    Next Note and Next Unseen will serve the purpose almost as well.

re: .287, Mr. Topaz

>				Do you perceive Man as part of some
>       twisted high-school science project in which God sits back and
>       laughs Himself silly watching Man try to undo that which can't be
>       undone?

Could very well be. My favorite Larsen cartoon is the one with the small,
pudgey, bespectacled kid in a tee-shirt and crewcut, standing behind a
counter littered with busted laboratory equipment while feathers float
through the air. The Caption: 

	God, as a child, tries to make a chicken in his room.

    If you guys can't even agree on how to be Christian, how
    are you going to convert me?
    
    What difference does it make if the Bible is read in Hebrew,
    Greek or English?  Do you really think Jesus Christ cared about
    words on a page?  It seems from my experience (which is not
    insignificant), that Jesus cared alot more about the "Living"
    Bible than the "written" Bible.  He cared a lot more about how
    you lived the Word of God, not how you translated it.
    
    Debates and discussions about Jewish sacrifice and "petros"
    and "petras" don't feed hungry people.  If a person is meant
    to hear the Word of God, those words will speak, regardless
    of the translation.  
    
    Words don't make a Christian, actions make a Christian.
    
    Mary-Michael

    
    er Mary, very well put!
    
    Mark

>    If you guys can't even agree on how to be Christian, how
>    are you going to convert me?
 
    Where is there any disagreement on how to be a Christian?  We are not
    going to convert you in any case since being a Christian is not about
    adopting a lifestyle but about being reconciled to God through Jesus
    Christ's death on the cross for our sins.
      
>    What difference does it make if the Bible is read in Hebrew,
>    Greek or English?  Do you really think Jesus Christ cared about
>    words on a page?  It seems from my experience (which is not
>    insignificant), that Jesus cared alot more about the "Living"
<    Bible than the "written" Bible.  He cared a lot more about how
>    you lived the Word of God, not how you translated it.
 
    Yes, of course Jesus cared about words on a page.  He practiced the Law
    perfectly and read and commented on the Scriptures extensively.  
    
        
>    Debates and discussions about Jewish sacrifice and "petros"
>    and "petras" don't feed hungry people.  If a person is meant
>    to hear the Word of God, those words will speak, regardless
>    of the translation.  
 
    No, you're correct, debates and discussions don't in themselves   
    do anything.  But a clear understanding of God's Word which is achieved
    through debate and discussion does lead to correct action.
    
    >Words don't make a Christian, actions make a Christian.
    
    >Mary-Michael
    
    For the record, according to the Bible a Christian is one who has
    repented of sin, believed in Christ and leads a holy life.  These are
    actions, of course.

re: /john

>The world would be a better place if more would do so more often.

If one believes that being Christ-like includes treating your fellow
man with respect, living a productive life, having tolerance for others,
helping those that you can, refraining from crimes against your
neighbors, etc. then this would surely be a good thing.

Unfortunately, and historically, a large number of those who would be
Christ-like take it upon themselves to force the "word" of their god upon
others when it is not welcome. They take this as one of their primary goals.
They persist in this even when it becomes clear to them that their efforts
are not only unwelcome and unwanted, but offensive. As a result, what
they succeed in doing is not so much spreading the "word" of their
god, but, rather, pissing people off. The curious matter here is that
they also recognize (how could they ignore it?) that what they are
accomplishing is simply that - pissing people off. And, it would appear,
that that then becomes the goal, for surely if the heathens will not
listen to the "word" of their god then they damn well better be pissed
off. So, in the guise of spreading the "word" of their god, they are
instead doing their god's work in pissing people off and offending
them. I for one can quite easily ascertain that if this is work which
their god finds valuable, then I'm quite correct in having neither
interest nor need for their god. Beating me about the head and shoulders
with a Baltimore Catechism, a Book of Common Prayer and a Gideons' Bible
will have only one effect on me - to piss me off. In that they will
succeed.

There are a number of conferences on the Enet where discussion on
matters of Christian theology and principle are welcome and encouraged.
I avoid them, as I have no interest in the subject matter. I once
opened one of them when I had a need to rid my property of weekly
forays by Jehovah's Witnesses who absolutely refused to take a
personal plea of "please leave" after numerous requests. The only
recourse I appeared to have was to raise the matter in CHRISTIAN
in order to obtain more visibility than I could get one-on-one in
my own front yard. It worked. Since then, I've treated the participants
of that conference with the same respect I did previously - I stay
away, and I leave them alone.

Now, granted, SOAPBOX is an open forum. Anyone is free to enter any
subject matter (within the bounds of good taste) that they like. We
had a topic regarding the Pascal season. Then we had a second. Then,
lo and behold, upon opening up the conference on Sunday AM, we had
yet a third. Your work is succeeding. You are reaching the goal of
your god. You are very effectively pissing me off. And I don't think
I'm the only one. That some of you take pleasure in this as evidenced
by a brief exchange yesterday -
	Q: Will we get these topics again next year?
	A: You bet your butt!
is very telling on the nature of either your selves or your god. But
as long as this continues (and admittedly, I haven't the slightest
expectation that it will cease) you will continue to succeed in getting
only one message through to me. That you desire to piss me off.

      re: .275
    
      Hi John,
    
        I just want to say that I don't think Catholics are the true
        faith or evangelicals, or SDA's (and I'm the SDA).
    
        The true faith will be evident in the people who abide by it.
        They will reflect the character of Christ.
    
        I don't have a problem with Jeff and Jack suggesting a bad thing
        or two about other faiths; I just have a problem that they don't
        seem to do the same _about their own_.
    
        Most interpretors of scripture believe that the church in Rev 3
        that is called Laodicaea is the last day church and is our church.
        Jesus' description of it is not good.  "Naked, wretched, miserable,
        blind, etc."
    
        Jesus describes my church and me as well.
    
        To hear such talk is kind of a drag...
    
        but then again, its hard to get made well unless you come to 
        realize what your condition is.
    
        My problem with some others is what seems like a denial of our
        condition.  Sounds pharisee-like and very unpublicanlike to me.
    
        But, then again, when I say I'm blind, how much is that ONLY my
        words and not the conviction of my heart?
    
        John, I believe in and hope to see the day when the testimony 
        that validates Christianity is the character seen in its adherents.
        In contrast to this forum, they will say and do _just the right
        thing_.  They will be just like Jesus (in character).
    
        And I hope and pray that you and I will have hearts that can 
        discern such a thing should it take place in our lifetimes.
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony
                                                             

    re: .297
    
    I'm not sure I agree with you.  "Right" isn't in your head.
    "Right" is in your heart.  Debate and discussion are intellectual
    persuits which can yield greater understand as well as a 
    great deal of pleasure.  But if you know God and know yourself,
    "right" is always in your heart.  There are many good Christians
    who cannot read.  I do not believe God's salvation would be
    denied to those who can only act on what is in their heart.
    In fact, I believe His arms open wider to receive them. :-)
    
    Mary-Michael

    .289
    
    oooh oooh oooh
    
    am i on that yet?
    
    ric
    8^)

    Mary Michael:
    
    This is the thing that baffles me.  Here in Soapbox, there is
    definitely a bent away from religious issues in general never mind
    Christianity.  Therefore, one would take an analytical approach to
    religion...comparing beliefs and debating these issues...there is
    nothing wrong with this....as long as the participants have the
    strength and self confidence in their own belief system to overcome the
    perceived barbs theu feel are being thrown at them.
    
    The petros petra thing is simply a topic of interest...it wasn't
    brought up with any passion believe me!!
    
    -Jack

    re: .302
    
    Jack,
    
    I was a student of debate for 3 years.  I have yet to 
    see a religious topic "debated" in this forum.  "Slung around", perhaps.
    Debated? No.  :-) :-)  Religion is too close a topic for most
    people to debate successfully.  It is part of who we are and
    how we identify ourselves.  Telling someone their identity
    is "wrong" isn't something that can be done without some
    emotion.  People who are not Christian believe in the tenets
    of their faiths, in the books of their faithful and the
    words of their Gods just as strongly and as deeply and with
    as much conviction as you or any other Christian.  And
    who knows? They could be right. :-) Or it could make no difference
    at all in the end.  Perhaps God will be more concerned about
    the hearts of men than their belief system. Or perhaps He
    doesn't care at all.  Or perhaps He doesn't exist.  Whatever
    it is, we just don't know.  And all the words in the world
    won't change that.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    
    
    

| <<< Note 382.288 by POBOX::BATTIS "Land shark,pool shark" >>>



| While, I believe in God, and consider myself a Christian, I certainly don't 
| preach about it in the box, and I also believe EVERYONE is entitled to their 
| own opinions and beliefs. 

	Mark, I'm puzzled here. While I agree with you when you said that they
are right and everyone else is wrong in their tone, I get the impression above
that you think everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, but that
they should not share them if they are religious in nature. IF, and I say IF
that IS the case, I could not agree with you. I may not want to hear what they
have to say on the issues of religion, but I still think they have the right to
say it. Again, if I have taken the wrong meaning of your words, please correct
me. 

| You, on the other hand, believe its your Christian duty to force feed your 
| beliefs on to everyone else. Why don't both you and Benson grow up.

	Force feeding one's beliefs onto another is not a sign of immaturity.
Again, most people may not want to hear it, believe it, but they do have the
right to say what they believe. The only thing I wish they would change is that
while they believe their beliefs are correct, others can believe their beliefs
are correct too. They don't need to agree with what they believe, just that
they do hold the beliefs to be true. 



Glen

| <<< Note 382.295 by SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>


| Words don't make a Christian, actions make a Christian.

	Mary-Michael, if belief in Him is part of your action list, I agree
with ya on this one!


Glen

| <<< Note 382.297 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| Where is there any disagreement on how to be a Christian?  

	This is too easy. Just look at the differences between you and Jack.
You are one who has stated one must believe in the Bible in order to gain
entrance to Heaven, while Jack has said you need to believe in Him. If one
interprets the Bible one way, and one another, you will come out with two
versions of Christian. You also have many denominations because of the
differences in opinion/beliefs. How much easier can this get?


Glen

    re: .305
    
    I don't know about that yet, Glen, I'm still "wandering around."
    :-)
    
    But I think the concept is universal.  We even have a saying for it,
    "Actions speak louder than words."  Giving "lip service" to your faith
    is one thing.  Living your faith is another.  And living your faith
    is harder and far more challenging on a daily basis.  I think one
    thing that I found unsettling in Catholicism ten years ago (this
    may have changed since), was that so many people simply followed
    the "rules".  They showed up every Sunday and every holy day,
    and as they filed out of the Church you could hear them gossiping
    about their fellow parishoners.  I think study of the Bible,
    both as a religious text and within it's historical context,
    can be enlightening and inspiring, but I don't think it's everything,
    or even the major thing.
    
    Mary-Michael

    
    Glen
    
    I have no problem with anyones right to state their beliefs or
    opinions. I personally, choose not to air them in the box, as a whole
    that is. I was getting tired of God's little messengers, Jack and Jeff
    trying to save our souls, or have us see the "light" as it were.
    
    Immature?? Yes, I believe they have acted immaturely in their incessant
    desire to tick people off.
    
    Mark

| <<< Note 382.302 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| This is the thing that baffles me. Here in Soapbox, there is definitely a bent
| away from religious issues in general never mind Christianity.  

	Yes and no. I have seen many people hold discussions on religion and
Christianity in here. I have seen people get heated because eventually it goes
down the thumpers road. I'll give you two examples of this from my life, and
maybe you will see the difference. 

1. When I was in Texas, a friends mother was talking to us about religion. Both
   my friend and I were not religious in any way, but we talked with her for
   hours about it. The reason we did this was because she was talking to us, 
   not at us. It was always one of the best nights I have had talking with
   someone about religion, or anything for that matter.

2. My friend came back from one of those fire weekends, and began to tell the
   entire plant that unless they repent, they will burn in agony in hell. It
   got to the point that people were complaining to their supervisors about it
   because he wouldn't stop, and he only talked about the negatives about it  
   all. I was asked to talk to him and get him to stop, or he would be dragged
   into personell. He was one who always talked about religion, but not like 
   that. He was talking AT everyone that day, not TO everyone as he normally
   would.

	I truly believe that is one of the biggest problems with some in
religion. They could do so much better at getting their beliefs out if they
would talk to people, and not AT them. (imho)


Glen

    Glen:
    
    If you are comparing me to 2, then I would really appreciate a pointer
    from anybody in this forum.  I can take alot of grief from alot of
    people but I would have to see this one.  Even in the Christian
    Perspective conference I am not that bold.  I never mentioned hellfire
    or anything.  
    
    Mark, please provide a pointer as to where I tried to tell you how to
    live, how to get to heaven and how I have had a holier than thou
    attitude.  I agree there is alot of emotionalism here...but where do
    you get off accusing me of this?!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 382.308 by POBOX::BATTIS "Land shark,pool shark" >>>



| I have no problem with anyones right to state their beliefs or opinions. 

	I was hoping you would say that!

| I personally, choose not to air them in the box, as a whole that is. I was 
| getting tired of God's little messengers, Jack and Jeff trying to save our 
| souls, or have us see the "light" as it were.

	Well, I think there are times that because of how they chose to say it,
we tend to back away, get turned off, or not even read what they have to say.
That could end up being our loss.

| Immature?? Yes, I believe they have acted immaturely in their incessant desire
| to tick people off.

	You know, one would hope that if they are talking about God, Jesus,
Christanity, etc, that they wouldn't be doing so to tick people off. The
results may end up ticking people off, but that could just be in the
presentation, and not what is in their hearts. (although Jack has admitted in
here yesterday that sometimes he will say things to stir things up)



Glen

| <<< Note 382.310 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| If you are comparing me to 2, then I would really appreciate a pointer from 
| anybody in this forum. I can take alot of grief from alot of people but I 
| would have to see this one. Even in the Christian Perspective conference I am 
| not that bold. I never mentioned hellfire or anything.

	Jack, hellfire was an example of one who talks AT people about religion
instead of one who talks TO people about religion. The AT/TO is the key to it
all. You are not one who talks about fire and brimstone.


Glen

	(From The Messianic Legacy- Baigent, Leigh, Lincoln)

		There are aspects of the Crucifixion that warrant
	further investigation. According to the Gospels, Jesus is
	crucified at a place called Golgotha (the place of the skull).
	Tradition identifies Golgotha as a barren, skull-shaped hill
	to the Northwest of Jerusalem. Yet the Gospels themselves
	make it clear that the site of the Crucifixion is very different
	from a barren skull-shaped hill. The Fourth Gospel is very
	explicit: "...Now in the place where he was crucified there was
	a garden; and in the garden a new tomb where no man had ever been
	laid."(John 19:41) Jesus was crucified not on a barren hill, or
	for that matter in any public place of execution. He was crucified
	in or immediately adjacent to a garden containing a private tomb.
	According to Matthew (27:60)  this garden belonged to Joseph of
	Arimathea, who according to all four Gospels was both a man of
	wealth and a secret disciple of Jesus.
		Tradition depicts the Crucifixion as a large-scale
	public affair accessible to everyone and attended by a cast of
	thousands. And yet the Gospels themselves suggest very different
	circumstances. According to Matthew, Mark and Luke the Crucifixion
	is witnessed by most people, including the women, from 
	"afar off"(Luke 23:49) It would seem likely then that Jesus death
	was not a public event but a private one- a private crucifixion
	performed on private property. Needless to say, a private
	crucifixion on private property leaves considerable room for a hoax.
	To the general populace the drama would only have been visible,
	as the Synoptic Gospels confirm, from some distance. And  from a
	distance it would not have been apparent who was being crucified,
	or if he was actually dead.
		Such a charade would have required collusion on the part
	of an influential Roman like Pontius Pilate. The historical
	Pilate, as opposed to the one depicted in the Gospels, would not
	have been above sparing Jesus' life in exchange for money or a 
	guarantee of no further political agitation.
		According to Roman law a crucified man was denied all burial.
	Guards were often posted to prevent relatives or friends from
	removing the bodies of the dead. The victim would simply be left
	on the cross, at the mercy of the elements and carrion birds. Yet,
	Pilate, in a flagrant breach of procedure readily grants Jesus'
	body to Joseph of Arimathea.
		In the Fourth Gospel Jesus, hanging on the cross, declares
	that he thirsts. In reply to his complaint he is given a sponge
	soaked in vinegar. This sponge is generally interpreted as another
	sadistic act. But was it ? Vinegar- or soured wine - is a temporary
	stimulant with effects not unlike smelling salts. It was often used
	at that time to resuscitate slaves on galleys. For a wounded or
	exhausted man a sniff or taste of vinegar would produce a momentary
	surge of energy. And yet in Jesus' case the effect is just the
	opposite. No sooner does he inhale or taste the sponge,  than he
	pronounces his final words and expires.  Such a reaction would be
	more likely with a sponge soaked, not in vinegar, but in some type
	of soporific drug- a compound of opium and/or belladonna, for
	instance, commonly employed in the Middle East at the time. But 
	why offer a sporific drug, unless the act of doing so, was an element
	of a larger stratagem- a stratagem designed to produce a semblance
	of death when the victim, in fact, was still alive. Such a stratagem
	would not only have saved Jesus' life but also have realized the
	Old Testament prophecies of a Messiah.

    						Al Legory

    oooh oooh oooh
    
    i think that's wot i mentioned in .44
    
    also, didn't this all happen just as they were going to break the legs
    (which would've killed him for sure?)
    
    ric

       
  Baha'i -- Some Information

  The following article is adapted and posted from Usenet, and it is
  intended for distribution only within Digital Equipment Corporation.


 1  BAHA'I TEACHINGS

  Some of the basic principles of the Baha'i Faith are:


   1. The oneness of mankind

      "It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own
      country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world.
      The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens."
      -Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 250.

   2. The oneness of religion

      "All these divisions we see on all sides, all these disputes
      and opposition, are caused because men cling to ritual and
      outward observances, and forget the simple, underlying
      truth. It is the outward practices of religion that are so
      different, and it is they that cause disputes and enmity-
      while the reality is always the same, and one. The Reality
      is the Truth, and truth has no division. Truth is God's
      guidance, it is the light of the world, it is love, it is mercy.
      These attributes of truth are also human virtues inspired
      by the Holy Spirit." -Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, pp. 120-1.

   3. Independent investigation of truth

      "Furthermore, know ye that God has created in man the
      power of reason, whereby man is enabled to investigate
      reality. God has not intended man to imitate blindly his
      fathers and ancestors. He has endowed him with mind,
      or the faculty of reasoning, by the exercise of which he is
      to investigate and discover the truth, and that which he
      finds real and true he must accept." -Abdu'l-Baha, The
      Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 291.

   4. Religion as a source of unity

      "He (Baha'u'llah) sets forth a new principle for this day
      in the announcement that religion must be the cause of
      unity, harmony and agreement among mankind. If it be
      the cause of discord and hostility, if it leads to separation
      and creates conflict, the absence of religion would be
      preferable in the world." -Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World
      Faith, p. 247.

   5. The evolutionary nature of religion

      Baha'is view religion as a progressive, evolutionary
      process which needs to be updated as humanity evolves
      mentally, socially, and spiritually. Every so often a
      new Prophet is sent to humanity to update religion to
      the current needs of mankind. These Prophets bring
      essentially the same spiritual message to mankind; in a
      form that meets the needs of the people of Their time.
      Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah has brought an updated
      message for mankind today.

      "There is no distinction whatsoever among the Bearers
      of My Message. They all have but one purpose; their
      secret is the same secret. To prefer one in honor to
      another, to exalt certain ones above the rest, is in no wise
      to be permitted. Every true Prophet hath regarded His
      Message as fundamentally the same as the Revelation of
      every other Prophet gone before Him...

      The measure of the revelation of the Prophets of God
      in this world, however, must differ. Each and every
      one of them hath been the Bearer of a distinct Message,
      and hath been commissioned to reveal Himself through
      specific acts. It is for this reason that they appear to vary
      in their greatness...

      It is clear and evident, therefore, that any apparent
      variation in the intensity of their light is not inherent
      in the light itself, but should rather be attributed to the
      varying receptivity of an ever-changing world. Every
      Prophet Whom the Almighty and Peerless Creator
      hath purposed to send to the peoples of the earth hath
      been entrusted with a Message, and charged to act in a
      manner that would best meet the requirements of the age
      in which He appeared." -Gleanings from the Writings of
      Baha'u'llah, pp.78-9.

   6. Harmony between religion, science, and reason

      "Religion and science are the two wings upon which
      man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which
      the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with
      one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing
      of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire
      of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing
      of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall
      into the despairing slough of materialism." -Abdu'l-Baha,
      Paris Talks, p.143.

   7. Peaceful consultation as a means for resolving differences
      In the Baha'i Faith, difference of opinion is not squelched,
      in fact it is encouraged.

      "The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the
      clash of differing opinions." -Selections from the Writings
      of Abdu'l-Baha, p.87.

      However, differences of opinion can be expressed in a way
      that doesn't humiliate another human being. The Baha'i
      principle of consultation requires that an individual be
      detached from his or her opinions and always be open to
      the truth, from whoever or wherever it comes from.

      "They must then proceed with the utmost devotion,
      courtesy, dignity, care and moderation to express their
      views. They must in every manner search out the truth
      and not insist upon their own opinion, for stubbornness
      and persistence in one's views will lead ultimately to
      discord and wrangling and the truth will remain hidden.
      The honored members (of the consulting body) must with
      all freedom express their own thoughts, and it is in no
      wise permissible for one to belittle the thought of another,
      nay, he must with moderation set forth the truth..."
      -Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p.88.

   8. An international auxiliary language

      "It behoveth the sovereigns of the world-may God assist
      them-or the ministers of the earth to take counsel
      together and to adopt one of the existing languages or
      a new one to be taught to children in schools throughout
      the world, and likewise one script. Thus the whole earth
      will come to be regarded as one country." -Baha'u'llah,
      Tablet of Bisharat (Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 22.)

   9. Universal education

      "Unto every father hath been enjoined the instruction of
      his son and daughter in the art of reading and writing
      and in all that hath been laid down in the Holy Tablet. He
      that putteth away that which is commanded unto him,
      the Trustees of the House of Justice are then to recover
      from him that which is required for their instruction,
      if he be wealthy, and if not the matter devolveth upon
      the House of Justice. Verily, have We made it a shelter
      for the poor and needy. He that bringeth up his son or
      the son of another, it is as though he hath brought up
      a son of Mine; upon him rest My Glory, My Loving-
      Kindness, My Mercy, that have compassed the world."
      -Baha'u'llah, Tablet of Ishraqat (Tablets of Baha'u'llah,
      p.128).

   10. The elimination of all forms of prejudice

      "...again, as to religious, racial, national and political bias:
      all these prejudices strike at the very root of human life;
      one and all they beget bloodshed, and the ruination of
      the world. So long as these prejudices survive, there will
      be continuous and fearsome wars." -Selections from the
      Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p.249.

   11. Equality of men and women

      "To accept and observe a distinction which God has
      not intended in creation is ignorance and superstition.
      The fact which is to be considered, however, is that
      woman, having formerly been deprived, must now be
      allowed equal opportunities with man for education
      and training. There must be no difference in their
      education. Until the reality of equality between man and
      woman is fully established and attained, the highest social
      development of mankind is not possible." -Abdu'l-Baha,
      The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p.76.

   12. The abolition of the extremes of wealth and poverty

      "O Ye Rich Ones on Earth! The poor in your midst are
      My trust; guard ye My trust, and be not intent only on
      your own ease." -The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah, p.41.

      "We see amongst us men who are overburdened
      with riches on the one hand, and on the other those
      unfortunate ones who starve with nothing; those who
      possess several stately palaces, and those who have not
      where to lay their head. Some we find with numerous
      courses of costly and dainty food; whilst others can scarce
      find sufficient crusts to keep them alive. Whilst some
      are clothed in velvets, furs and fine linen, others have
      insufficient, poor and thin garments with which to protect
      them from the cold.

      This condition of affairs is wrong and must be remedied.
      Now the remedy must be carefully undertaken. It cannot
      be done by bringing to pass absolute equality between
      men." -Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p.151.

   13. Universal peace

      "The time must come when the imperative necessity for
      the holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of
      men will be universally realized. The rulers and kings
      of the earth must needs attend it, and, participating in
      its deliberations, must consider such ways and means
      as will lay the foundations of the world's Great Peace
      amongst men. Such a peace demandeth that the Great
      Powers should resolve, for the sake of the tranquillity
      of the peoples of the earth, to be fully reconciled among
      themselves. Should any king take up arms against
      another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him. If this
      be done, the nations of the world will no longer require
      any armaments, except for the purpose of preserving the
      security of their realms and of maintaining internal order
      within their territories." -Gleanings from the Writings of
      Baha'u'llah, p. 249.

  2  EARLY HISTORY

  In May of 1844, a young Persian by the name of Mirza
  `Ali Muhammad declared that He was the promised Qa'im
  of Shi'ah Islam. He assumed the title of The Bab (Gate).
  The Bab's mission was twofold: He first announced to the
  people of His native land His own station as an independent
  Messenger and He also prepared the way for the coming of
  another Manifestation (messenger) of God, a Prophet who
  would announce His station soon after The Bab.

  The next six years marked a dramatic increase in both the
  number of persons who became followers of the Bab and in
  the energy spent by the Shi'ah clergy of Iran to stamp out
  this new religion. Eventually 20,000 Babis would be put to
  death for their beliefs. The Bab Himself was imprisoned and
  was executed in July of 1850.

  Many Babis were also imprisoned. Among them was
  Husayn-`Ali, entitled Baha'u'llah (The Glory of God) by The
  Bab. Imprisoned for several months in 1853 in Tehran and
  then exiled to Iraq, in the city of Baghdad in 1863 Baha'u'llah
  announced to the world His station as the One for Whom
  the Bab had prepared the way. The majority of the Babis
  accepted Baha'u'llah's claim and became known as Baha'is
  (the followers of Baha).

  Shortly after His declaration, Baha'u'llah was again banished,
  even further From His native land: from Baghdad to
  Constantinople, and then to Adrianople. Finally in 1867,
  Baha'u'llah was exiled for the last time. He was sent to the
  prison city of Akka (Acre) in Palestine. He would stay in and
  around Akka until the end of His life in 1892.

  Before Baha'u'llah passed away, He appointed His eldest
  son, Abdu'l-Baha, to be the center of His Covenant and the
  interpreter of His writings. Abdu'l-Baha was leader of the
  Baha'i Faith until His own passing in 1922. Although He
  is not considered to be a Manifestation of God like the Bab
  and Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha's decisions are believed to have
  been divinely guided and His writings (along with the Bab's
  and Baha'u'llah's) are considered a part of the Baha'i sacred
  scripture. After being released from the prison in Akka,
  Abdu'l-Baha made several journeys to the West, including a
  trip to America in 1912.


 3  RECENT HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS

  Abdu'l-Baha stated in his Will and Testament that leadership
  of the Baha'i community was to be passed on to his eldest
  grandson, Shoghi Effendi, who became the "Guardian" of the
  Baha'i community after Abdu'l-Baha died. Shoghi Effendi
  led the Baha'is until his passing in 1957. It was under
  Shoghi Effendi's leadership that the Baha'i Faith spread to
  all corners of the world. Today there are Baha'is in over
  200 countries and territories and Baha'i literature has been
  translated into over 700 different languages.

  Consistent with the Baha'i principle of independent
  investigation of truth, according to which no individual Baha'i
  may offer an interpretation of the Baha'i Writings by which
  others are bound, there is no clergy in the Baha'i Faith.
  Baha'i institutions govern the administrative affairs of the
  Faith. In each locality, nine-member boards known as Local
  Spiritual Assemblies are elected annually. At the national
  level are National Spiritual Assemblies, also consisting of nine
  members, elected annually by representatives of the Baha'is
  in each country. At the international level is the Universal
  House of Justice, centered in Haifa, Israel (just across the bay
  from the prison city of Akka, where Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-
  Baha were imprisoned). The Universal House of Justice also
  consists of nine members and is elected every five years by
  members of the National Spiritual Assemblies throughout the
  world. The Universal House of Justice has final responsibility
  for overseeing the international Baha'i community.


  4  REFERENCES

  For those interested in reading more about the Baha'i Faith,
  a few references are listed below. Some of these volumes
  can be found at your local public library. In addition, many
  Baha'i communities have lending libraries and, in varying
  degrees, bookstore capabilities.

  General:


   �  Hatcher, W.S. and Martin, G.D., The Baha'i Faith: The
      Emerging Global Religion , Harper & Row, New York,
      1986.

  Baha'i Sacred Writings:


   �  Baha'i World Faith: Selected Writings of Baha'u'llah and
      Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i Publishing Trust, Wilmette, IL, 1956
      edn., rp. 1976.

   �  Tablets of Baha'u'llah revealed after the Kitab-i-Aqdas,
      Baha'i World Center, Haifa, 1978.

   �  Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, translated by
      Shoghi Effendi. Baha'i Publishing Trust, Wilmette, IL,
      1939, 3rd ed. 1976.

   �  The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah , Baha'i Publishing
      Trust, Wilmette, IL, 1939, 11th ed. 1980.

   �  Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha , Baha'i
      World Center, Haifa, 1978.

   �  Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, Baha'i
      Publishing Trust, Wilmette, IL rev. ed. 1981.

  �  Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks: Addresses Given by Abdu'l-
      Baha in Paris in 1911-12 Baha'i Publishing Trust,
      London, 11th ed. 1969.

   �  Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace:
      Talks Delivered by Abdu'l-Baha During His Visit to the
      United States and Canada in 1912 , Baha'i Publishing
      Trust, Wilmette, IL, 1982.

  Baha'i History:


   �  Effendi, Shoghi, God Passes By, Baha'i Publishing Trust,
      Wilmette, IL, 1944.

   �  Balyuzi, H.M, Baha'u'llah, the King of Glory , George
      Ronald, Oxford, 1980.
       

    Interesting- but what does Bali Hai have to do with the crucifixion
    of JESUS ?
    		Jim