And his atonement to my parents. As I remember being a true believer, this is unthinkable. I can only imagine how they feel right now.

Kinda makes me sad. They have no hope for me.

But I am fine with me. I guess that's what really matters.

The quest for the historical Jesus has ended with a
"no final proof" verdict. Assuming there was a Jesus
living 2000 years ago, there is even less evidence
that he would have called himself "Messiah" or "Christ."

The best we can do is to try and recover the beliefs
and practices of the very first professed Jesus followers.

And, I have a strong suspicion that they too, would have
denied his being a "Christ."

So, I think you are in good company.

Uncle Dale

The word "final" is redundant. are you trying to be a lawyer or something ?

We'll all get to say hi to Mark Twain for them!

CBS4 News item

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxf6uhJChns

There were many "Christ's" in Jewish History. All a Christ, otherwise known as a messiah (meshiach), is, is an anointed King.Someone who brings liberation to the Jewish people. David was a meshiach and so were many others.

Gwylym Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There were many "Christ's" in Jewish History. All
> a Christ, otherwise known as a messiah (meshiach),
> is, is an anointed King.Someone who brings
> liberation to the Jewish people. David was a
> meshiach and so were many others.


When the occupying Persians refused to allow a Davidic
king on the throne of re-established Judah, I think that
was the watershed point, after which the Jews' messianic
hopes and expectations kicked in. Isaiah and Jeremiah
were the early forerunners of this hope -- but I do
not think it took on a firm shape until later on.

With no Davidic kings on the throne, the Jewish High
Priests became the only remaining anointed leaders. The
hope grew for a coming royal anointed one; but the
priestly "messiahs" continued in their role. We see both
sorts of leaders mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So -- considering all of that history -- what does it mean
to "deny the Christ?"

I say it is a meaningless act -- denying, perhaps, that
Jesus was "a christ;" or that Jesus ever existed; or that
there was ever a real need for any Jewish "christ." None
of which can be definitively resolved at this late date.

The more serious act would be to deny forgiveness, or to
deny redemption, or to deny love itself.

UD

I think people should take responsability for thier own mistakes. There is no redemption, what is,is; what was, was. Forgiveness is only usefull for the forgiver. It only serves as a psychological tool that allows them to move on with life, it has no external or eternal influence.

No matter what anyone does the past can not be changed. We can only react to the past.

Jesus Christ (historical or not) is simply a character with no real power. Look inside yourself that is where the only vale of self lies.

>Forgiveness is only usefull for the forgiver...

Oh, I think that an inmate on death row who receives a
governor's pardon, prior to his scheduled execution,
might argue with you just a little.

According to an old Jewish reading of scripture, the
"suffering servant" of Isaiah, and the "son of man" of
Daniel, are the entire congregation of the faithful.

In other words, the "body of Christ" is the atoning
entity, whether or not there ever was a Jesus the son
of Mary.

Looking at it all from that perspective, "redemption"
is not based upon some past event, but upon the acceptance
of society, here and now.

If society accepts the governor's pardon of the death row
inmate, then it is not the executive who has provided
redemption, but rather a contemporary society which upholds
and honors that executive pardon.

UD

Pardoned is vastly different form forgiven. A pardon simply removes legal penalties. Those who have been wronged may still hate the pardoned man. Society may still hold grudges against him. hell, the executive may have issued the pardon for purely polotical reasons totaly unrelated to his feelings toward the pardoned persons acts. The pardoned may still feel remorse and self hate even though he is now legaly free. Forgiveness can only be done one at a time and it only serves the one who is forgiving.

There is no redemption because the pardoned is caught in the same stream of time we all are any changes made in his life or the lives of those affected by him are a result of human will or the forces of nature. There is no god and eternity in un-measureabla and therefore not understood enougt to reasonably bring into the argument.

>Forgiveness can only be done one at a time and it
>only serves the one who is forgiving...

An assertion easily made, but I'm not told what supports it.
What authorities might I consult to verify that claim?

I'm not talking about merely commuting the sentence of a
felon, but actually removing the felon status from a person.
If that is not a beneficial act, I do not know what is.

There have obviously been many cases where convicted people
have received unjust sentences (20 years in a Texas prison
for a single marihuana seed, discovered in a man's pocket)
and an executive pardon is issued to help balance that
problem. If that is not beneficial to the pardoned, I do
not know what is.

But, let's look at a more mundane example. Myself and a
buddy "borrowed" my girlfriend's car, while she was away,
and ran over her pet cat in the driveway. To make matters
worse, the friend threw the dead pet in the trash without
notifying my girlfriend -- who discovered it there later.

After some initial hurt feelings, yelling, and accusations,
my girlfriend eventually forgave the two of us and the
incident was never mentioned again. Although she prized the
companionship of the dead pet, she must have valued our
human relationships at a higher level.

The extended forgiveness SEEMED beneficial to myself and
my friend. If it only "served" the interests of the saddened
girlfriend, then I suppose me and my buddy were deluded in
thinking it had helped us as well.

UD

Okay Uncle Dale, I'll concede that there is potential tangible bennefits for the offender if they are forgiven if the offender feels bad about the offense. But at most the act of forgiveness only directly impacts the offender and the ofendee(s).

I think in the case of pardons for unjust convictions there is no forgiveness on the part of the state or the populace, simply an admission of a sad mistake. There can be no forgiveness when there was no real offense. In such an instance the roles of offender and offended would be reversed and it would be the pardoned who would be in a position to forgive the state or to hold a grudge. In this case I doubt the state or public would care all that much what the pardoned person decided to feel.

Sorry I can't offer further verification for my claims Uncle Dale (funny thing is that I really did have an Uncle Dale). I only have my personal insight and musings to extend. I don't expect anyone to agree with them, just to accept that they are my thoughts. You have contributed to the broadening of my views though, so thanks for that.

luckychucky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...But at most the act of forgiveness
> only directly impacts the offender and the ofendee(s).


You may have a point there. Societal forgiveness is probably
a rare and fickle thing -- more driven by politics than by
any true sense of corporate decency.

I'll not deny forgiveness -- though I'd deny the Christian
claims for a universal vicarious atonement. In my view of
things, forgiveness is a more personal matter -- like my
re-establishing congenial family ties by forgiving my
grandkids (and letting them know they are accepted).

Under the old biblical law, an Israelite could not suffer
a witch to live. The observer of the Law of Moses who
lived up to regulations and restrictions perfectly, and
yet allowed his witch neighbor to go on living, was subject
to expulsion, shunning and possibly worse punishments....
all for his toleration or forgiveness of that witch.

Strange stuff.

UD

So much of this sort of thing is so silly. So you decided that maybe the Jesus as represented by a particular religion isn't a correct depiction or perhaps that the character wasn't what or who he is claimed to be by the traditional teachings about who and what he is (was??). So what? How does this impact anyone exccept within the context of that same teaching?

I'm certain you are not different or worse of a person because of how you see Jesus - as a real or fictitious character - than your parents who find reason to be disappointed in you.

What and who you are, and what you do in your life is FAR more important than what and who you think Jesus is. Certainly, if Jesus is the person (or deity) your parents think he is, he understands this and you are in good standing with him. If not, then he is not worth the time it takes dismiss him. It makes no sense to think that a person who behaves well and tries to live a good and decent life would be comdemned to hell because he doesn't believe exactly the right things, while the repubate who steals and harms his fellow man for his own gain and profit is rewarded with eternal reward and bliss simply because he professes to believe - or perhaps truly believes - just the right thing.

Sorry your parents are sad, but I'm glad that you're fine with who you are and with your lack of belief. Yes, that is what really matters :)

TG

Jesus mows my lawn now. He's pretty cool. Has six kids and was born in Xtapa. I speak Spanish to him and he speaks English to me. We get along famously.

Ron