Posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2011, at 5:16:16
In reply to Re: Lou's request-continued » Lou Pilder, posted by hyperfocus on June 12, 2011, at 20:53:21
> Lou by establishment I simply mean the people who have the power in society who are not accepting of change since it would necessarily mean they would have to give up some of that power. Jesus has never fit in well with those in power, either then or now.
>
> The point I'm making is that Jesus had zero interest in power or even forming a new religion. There are many places in the New Testament where he seems to warn against exactly what Christianity has become today. You're absolutely right - most of Jesus' followers were Jews, and he had no intention of changing that. Jesus himself never gave any directive that Christians separate from Jews - when people asked him about the rules about being righteous he gave them the Ten Commandments. The schism between Judaism and Christianity developed quite a number of years after his death and had nothing to do with the events of the crucifixion. It was purely a theological and political thing that had very little to do with Christ's teachings.
>
> I personally don't have any sort of antagonistic feelings towards Judaism or Jews. I think that the actual message of Jesus precludes any of that from any Christian. My beef is with people like Paul and the Church Fathers who did things like legitimize slavery and inequality in society.
>
> "Go then and preach the gospel of the Kingdom.
>
> Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it."
>
> - The Gospel of Mary Magdalenehf,
You wrote,[...establishment..people who have the power in society who are not accepting of change...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here in relation to that others could think the statement could mean something other than what you intend. If you could post answers here to the following, then I think that others could have a better understanding of what your intentions could be and respond accoringly.
A. In,[...establishment...people that have the power in society who are not acceptimng of change...], going back then:
1. What kind of power going back then that people did not want to change would one need to have to be included in the establishment?
2. Would the Levites be included in the establishment? If so, what was the change they were not accepting to?
3. Would the Pharisees be included in the establishment? If so, what was the change they were not accepting to?
4. Would the Sanhedrin be included in the establishment? If so, what was the change they were not accepting to?
5. Would the Roman governers of Jerusalem be included in the establishment? If so, what was the change they were not accepting to?
6. Would the Roman tax collectors be included in the establishment? If so, what is the change they were not accepting to?
7. By your use of the word {all}, that word is what it is. In your statement that those of the establishment {hated}, what is the basis that you used for you writing that statement here, for I can not understand why hate has to be associated with giving up power. For instance,if in an election the Democrats are replaced by Republicans, I do not think that has to lead them to hating those that made them give up their power.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:985024
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/987929.html