| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
| Date: |
24 Nov 2005 03:49:19 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Paul defines a Jew |
29 He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision
is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His
praise is not from men but from God.
1 P: Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of
circumcision?
2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted
with the oracles of God.
and there basically is RaPa's teaching: Romans become `Ioudaioi tou en
krypto` with the new `politeuma` but this is subordinate in a sense to
torah observant Yehudim who have `brit mila` and the claim to
`ha'aretz`.
Rav Paulos must revoke `brit mila` and `torah` for the international
brigade since `ha'aretz` is not promised to them, the Roman ersatz Jews
have another `politeuma`
The "advantage of the Jew" as defined by RaPa is `torah`
the Theos delivering torah to Yisrael is then also the `Basileus` or
King of the "spiritual Jews" [the Romans].
thus the "Law of Christ" will replace torah observance as a new `nomos`
for the outsiders the Romans.
No wonder then that Constantine and the Romans found it necessary to
establish the Roman Church as "the kingdom on earth" so that the
idiotic Christians would be able to associate their `politeuma` with
Rome once again.
Thus Rome reabsorbed the brain damaged population back into the polity.
what followed was a purge of *both* paganism and Judaic culture,
which evidences itself in such happy events as the burning of the
library at Alexandria and the murder of Hypatia
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul defines a Jew |
24 Nov 2005 01:35:58 PM |
|
|
On the one hand RaPa will be speaking of a "spiritual warfare" against
the flesh, then he will say that the struggle is not against the flesh
but against spiritual powers of authority behind the flesh.
The outcome is civil disobedience or resistance against the Roman
authority.
It is quite a reach to attribute to Paul's definition of a Jew written
in a letter to a small group in the 50's or 60's the behavior of
Christians in the mid to late 300's. There is much swept under the rug
in this giant leap. However you do make a good point in that it appears
that the empire was moving toward establishment of the "church" even
before Constantine. The recent excavation of a pre-Constantine church
building (featuring an obviously Christian mosaic and references to
Jesus) at Megiddo is perhaps evidence of this. Certainly Christianity
after Constantine was different than what came before. But judging from
the teachings of Paul such as I Cor 13, I would think a return to that
early form a good thing rather than suggest the early Christians were
a cancer that doomed the empire. What kind of an empire was this
anyway? Should it not have succumbed to its excesses? My bet is that
the burning of the library was done by a group that had become what
Paul would have called apostate had he been alive 250+ years after he
wrote his epistle. Surely this behavior would not have been condoned by
him. His exhortation to circumcision of the heart and being a Jew
inwardly echoes the writings of the prophets, and is in no way
subversive toward the faith of his fathers. However, he was well aware
that his exaltation of Jesus and his preaching of the cross was an
offense to his brothers. What choice did he have? He didn't think this
up himself, he "received it" according to his own testimony. Woe to him
if he preached not the gospel, as he said. Call him a con-man if you
want, but that is his words and his testimony - the one he willingly
lost his head for.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul defines a Jew |
25 Nov 2005 01:35:09 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On the one hand RaPa will be speaking of a "spiritual warfare" against
the flesh, then he will say that the struggle is not against the flesh
but against spiritual powers of authority behind the flesh.
The outcome is civil disobedience or resistance against the Roman
authority.
However you do make a good point in that it appears
that the empire was moving toward establishment of the "church" even
before Constantine.
No i wasn't saying that,
you are misinterpreting even misrepresenting what i said
the Roman Church is the Roman counter-revolution
as Lenin taught to control the opposition one must lead it
Certainly Christianity
after Constantine was different than what came before.
yes we covered this earlier
i can't go on with this
read books preferrably published prior to the 1970s
and learn one or two of the ancient texts in the source
good luck to you, friend
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
