"The Amaurotean Capitalist" <g.j.bailey@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
message news:0hau93hs0ddnankq3kqiri03aoae07b7ct@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:06:40 +0100, "Westprog" <westprog@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote: [well, not the first bits, but who cares about correct
> attribution? It still beats hammering Ray about the head with a wet
> fish]
>
> >> Jesus preached to more
> >> than just the Jews. He made it clear that his new world order
included
> >> non-Jews as equal members of society, (in religion, too),
> The problem with that is that it contradicts the apparent division
> between Paul and James.
Mark 7.
The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive
the demon out of her daughter.
"First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not
right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
"Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the
children's crumbs."
Then he told her, "For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your
daughter."
She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.
Equal?
> >> which incensed
> >> the Jewish authorities. The Romans would have agreed with him,
> If the Romans had agreed with him, he would have been accomodated
> somewhere within their client regime or Syrian administration. Instead
> they crucified him. This may be significant.
I get the impression that the Romans weren't that pushed either way, but
whatever kept things quiet would do. Whether they were crucifying Jesus
because he was stirring up anti-Roman sentiment, or because he was
upsetting
the Jewish authorities and provoking civil disorder, they would crucify
him
regardless. They weren't legalistic about such things.
....
> >> They work just as well if used as a basis for a just society; Jesus'
> >> real message, in my view. Jesus' teachings are obviously not solely
> >> religious.
> >There are ****tions of the teachings which are clearly entirely
religious.
> >There's no point in analysing the Our Father from a social reforming
POV.
> There was no point attempting to establish your leader****p credentials
> in Judea in 30 AD by doing anything other than claiming religious
> foundation for them in Mosaic Law. The gap between "religious" and
> "political" in that context is fictional anachronism.
> >> Please feel free to regard Jesus as a religious figure, however. I
> >> believe there are some others who would agree with you.
> >I don't think there's any question as to the fact that Jesus was a
religious
> >figure. The question is whether a subset of the teachings form the
basis
for
> >social reform unrelated to dogma. They probably do.
> True, but the question is really whether a subset of the teachings
> *attributed to him* form the basis for social reform unrelated to
> dogma. And that's got more to do with the agenda of the people
> promulgating the alleged history of his actions, statements and ideals
> after his death than anything he may have been about.
To be fair, the people claiming Jesus as a socialist aren't doing anything
different to anyone else.
--
J/
SOTW: "Panic" - The Puppini Sisters
http://www.thepuppinisisters.com/
http://www.azcars.eu/wdfdi/
|
