Solitary Man

So, does spin actually does read books. I guess that whole "I don't read secondary literature" was just another cop out when he got into a sticky situation.

judge

But you are still dodging and evading my question. Why not just face it and deal with it?[/quote]


I am not ammenber of any religion , although you might wish to put me in some box and stereotype me. It makes it much easier I guess.
I have had a lot of experience both in and outside of religion though (which you have not).

So you can spare me the guilt trip you are trying to foist on me...it wont work.

Ironic isn't it? That you seem to gladly take on the worst aspects of religionists. Trying to make people feel guilty so you can manipulate them.

The thing is that, leaving religion, I dont find your ideas and approach necessarily any better.
.

spin

Redefining terms, in this case from set of theological beliefs to an organization backing some set, isn't useful for communication.

We don't accept responsibility for the crimes of our ancestors, yet we live off the "benefits".

I'm merely reacting to you chauvanism.

I'm not asking you to. I'm just after a little real you, not just your performance at the sound of a bell.


spin

spin

Not enough room...




spin

judge

Oh come on.

Don't you think you should meet the real you first?

You're not as different, from religious fundies, as you imagine.

spin

I guess it's personal security covering up the cover up. And so you can continue to be an accomplice after the fact to cultural theft and justify it by attacking the owners.


spin

judge

Well you finally , after much dodging and avoiding manged to comment on one lonely verse. But it is not good enough. You need to explain.

Afterall you have wasted all this time. You want Jewish messainic ideas to be without fault. You still need to explain how in the light of what the the Hebrew prophets themselves have to say about the Hebrews you could possibly expect that.

All that seems apparent so far is that you read a book or two and somehow you became convinced that certain jewsish messianic ideas must have been in perfect conformity to the ideas of the prophets,.
Since we have the words of the Hebrew prphest you need to explain how your idea (or someone elses idea which you adopted by the sound of things) can stand in the light of the words of the Hebrew prophets.

Any fool can post pictures and throw tantrums, but can you explain?

spin

Finally my eye. You've just noticed something I've already said. Gosh. Impressive reading comprehension.

Still playing the pot looking for kettle, after being the brunt of this same criticism. Poor boy. You're on the road to bigger and better tangents.

(Here's one that you haven't read. You are still spelling what you pretend to know something about wrongly.)

You still haven't caught on to the basic problem you are humming and hahing about. You, for some unknown reason, think I'm saying something about fault with regard to Jewish messianic ideas. No, you've still got it cocked up. It is simply the fact that they know what a messiah was. Paul evidently didn't. One should learn to live with the probability that Paul's native language wasn't semitic.

So do you understand that it has nothing to do with the quality of Jewish messianic ideas? It's a merely technical issue. What the term meant.

And here you are mumbling on about stuff unrelated to the notion of messiah.

All you have to do is admit you don't understand the notion of "messiah". In fact the problem has merely been mystified in christianity, so I guess it's not strange that you are off beam.

(Oh and you should also admit to your bad attitude about the Jews of the early christian era. You were ready to contemplate the sincerity of those called heretics, but you refuse to consider the sincerity of the Jews of the time. We both understand the propaganda involved in the christian usurpation of Jewish culture.)

Clearly you are at sea with the notion of the messiah. Why crap on?

Ummm, prphest?

What has this got to do with messianism exactly? You still haven't made any connection.

Funny, judge. The only picture I posted was not for your benefit. And "tantrums" is just your way to look for something semi-meaningful to crap on about.

Here we are once again with you having salivated at the sound of the bell and had your physiological reaction which made no real sense. You choked at the problem of Paul's use of the term "messiah" or "christ". We know what the term meant at the time and Paul's use of it stank. I mentioned the fact (the bell) and you bled about it (the salivation). All you need do is find out what you're trying to talk about and then you can say something a little more meaningful.

So, get back to me on the messianism part, M$YX. It's a Hebrew term. It comes from a verb meaning "to anoint". The Greek word xristos comes from a verb with a similar meaning, though to a Greek xristos would have referred to that which is used to anoint, ie ointment, unguent, so the special religious use of xristos comes from a Jewish neologism which derived xristos by analogy to the Hebrew M$YX. The use of christ must be seen in a strictly Jewish Greek context and adhered to the Jewish content of MSYX, the "messiah", the one chosen to lead the Jewish people to overcome their oppression, though perhaps you might understand better if the idea came from a big name. Here's Hyam Maccoby on the Jewish notion of messiah, "a human leader who would restore the Jewish monarchy, drive out the Roman invaders, and inaugurate an era of peace, justice and prosperity (known as 'the kingdom of god') for the whole world." ("The Mythmaker", p.15.)

<wave>


spin

judge

So..you know that is not the point I made. The point is in the light of the Hebrew prophets themselves why assume this self serving interpretation is in line with the prohets idea of Messiah?

You are still mising the point. The messiah ushers in the new age, yet at time, when the Hebrew prophets themselves write about this they pretty obviously are not writing about a military victory over their enemies.

I already gave you Jeremiah in the regard.


As I mentioned religious folk tend to see interpretations of the prophets that are favourable to themselves and their "in" group.

So religious folk tend to see god on their side and as coming to defeat their enemies and elevate themselves, and so they miss this, which is clearly not about amilitary victory over the Romans.



Anyway..we dont seem to be getting anywhere he (my fault not doubt :devil1 ...so im gonna leave it.

spin

Obdurate to the end. You wanted to bleat about my talking about Paul's screwed up idea of "messiah". Then you went off on your tangent and never came back.

Eschatology isn't equivalent to messianism.

Yeah, we suffered through your self serving Aramaic crud. That was some staring-at-their-navel crowd.

Well, come back when you've dealt with your "messiah" issues... No, wait... don't.


spin