Case
On 22 March you wrote:
> [Case]
> This is simply misinformed. Jesus's teaching were straight from the
> Jewish law. From the greatest commandment (Deuteronomy) to the golden
> rule (Leviticus) to his statement that he came to fulfill the law not
> to abolish it, Jesus was a true blue Jew.
I have the suffocating feeling of being drawn into some detail
jungle by you. It's a fact that Jesus was in conflict with the
establishment - and in that region such meant religious conflict (it
still does) His agenda had the air of things to come, and it's no
coincidence that he came to spawn a new "sect" of Judaism that
at first was much like the "parent" but by and by came to oppose
it strongly and hopefully will break totally free some day.
> The Greek influence in Christianity crept in the second century when
> all of the Jewish followers of Jesus had been killed or run out of
> Israel by the Romans. The conflict between the direct followers of
> Jesus and the upstart Gentile church is detailed in Acts and Paul's
> letters. Galatians chapter 2 is particularly enlightening on this
> point.
Yes, this is well known, but I apply the MOQ and as usual it
sheds a new and revealing light on history ... as it does on our
own times.
> [Case]
> Jesus said the Law should be written in man's heart. But this law of
> the heart was actually stricter than the written law. For example it
> goes against the written law to commit adultery but Jesus said it has
> just as sinful to look upon a woman with lust. While Jesus' attitude
> toward woman may not have been typical for his time. He did include
> woman among his inner circle after all. He did not see all people as
> equal. In the parable of the Good Samaritan he uses the Samaritan
> because everybody hated them. His point was not to laud the equality
> of the Samaritan but to highlight the hypocrisy of the Scribe and
> Pharisee. He does not wish to speak to the Samaritan woman at the well
> and he has to be coaxed into helping the centurion with the dead
> daughter.
Well, that of making the Law an inner, subjective thing ("heart"
was equivalent to our "mind") may be significant and shows the
shape of things to come. Neither Judaism nor Islam bothers
much with that distinction if people just observe the rules and
regulations all is well. Regarding the said parable, it may have
HAD the meaning you suggest - Jesus weren't able to free
himself from his times completely - but at least it has become
the known one of love and compassion.
> In fact Jesus rants against the scribes and the Pharisees, who were
> the founders of modern Judaism. His bitch against them was that they
> were over intellectualizing the law by analysis and reason. They were
> tithing their herbs and letting the poor suffer.
OK, but look at it this way, Martin Luther's OWN mission was to
cleanse Christendom of the Church's many vices, but by doing so
he inadvertently started a movement that led to (the old type's)
fall from power. I think Jesus influence can be seen the same
way, he surely didn't visualize any "Christendom" but wanted to
shake up the bigot establishment and thus "inadvertently" started
a new religion that - after some centuries of being "in the service
of the old" - took off on a purpose of its own.
> [Case]
> The Jews did not need Jesus to loosen their social bonds they had the
> Romans for that and the Babylonian before them. But it was the
> strength of Jewish culture that prevailed in both instances and the
> Jews remain among the most remarkable peoples who ever lived. I
> believe it was Churchill who commented that the very existence of the
> Jewish people was in itself proof of God's existence.
Your "social" is the trite one of a country or a nation , but it's
better displayed by the Jews who do not belong to anything but
religion - exactly as the Muslims do (the one major social pattern
accoding to Pirsig) The orthodox Jew doesn't even belong to
Israel.
> [Case]
> Social-tied and backward before the 1500s? The Renaissance, St.
> Augustine, Acquinas, Da Vinci, Coppernicus, Galileo...
My point was that Christendom was such before the said
watershed. The pioneers of the re-born intellectual level had to
watch out as Bruno's case shows. It was not until the
Enlightenment that the said level began to dominate the social
level (religious) If Augustine and Aquinas were intellectual
LEVEL thinkers ...?
> But as for the point that Islam breeds fanatics all I can say is DUH!
> For the past 1000 year Europeans has seen fit it invade, steal their
> land, loot their resources and treat them like crap. What a shock that
> they are resentful.
The resentment theory is false, the Japanese had the bomb
dropped on them, were occupied and humiliated in every
conceivable way. But this did not result in resentment but a will to
beat the victors in their own field - technology and economy - and
now China - humiliated by both the West and East - is coming
along the same track. It's plain as day that the Islamist terror has
nothing to do with invasion or looting, rather their notorious
purists again out to cleanse themselves by showing so much
devotion and will to sacrifice.
IMO
Bo
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
