Aswad
Posts: 6908
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
Yes he said that, but he was talking about what he was teaching.
Or, perhaps he was talking about what was taught in one of the kingdoms from which the Judaic faith was eventually amalgated. Aramaic was rather prominent in one, and not so much in the other, if memory serves. The integration of the teachings of one into the other seems plausible, and the evidence seems to support retaining just enough of it to uphold the pact with the main gods worshipped by each major group.
That would be consonant with the passage in Matthew (the least disputed gospel) where he emphasizes that not the smallest stroke of a letter shall pass from the torah until every prophecy has been fulfilled and the world has turned to dust. Provided that such was not a lie on his part, it makes sense that it'd refer to a specific version, with which his teachings would presumably be in line.
quote:
So it seems to me fair to say that his agreement with the existing "revelation" lacked enthusiasm.
Or, perhaps bastardization of the faith irked him somewhat. The Moslems seem to have split from the main branch pretty early on, and to have adopted customs that could've plausibly been intended to prevent a reoccurance of such a bastardization as had occured at an earlier date. Some cognate words lend an impressive clarity to the text of the biblical works, as does taking into account the difference in loaning from Canaan.
Consider another scenario. Let's say you're a diety. One that's pretty concerned with keeping a certain covenant with a group of people, but also not happy about how the other party is going about things on their end. So you get an opportunity to incarnate, send someone else in your stead, or whatever... Does it not appear tempting, then, to erode the worldly powerbase of the priests, forcing them to choose between power and fidelity to the covenant?
It is alluded to that Judas turns Jesus over to the priesthood to put them in just such a double bind, and that in doing so, he "will outshine the others, for [he] will free me from this prison[...]" and, lo and behold, shortly thereafter, a movement begins, the Temple is destroyed, the Roman empire sees Caligula ascend to the throne, the Jews lose power and are persecuted until they offer assistance in the development of nuclear weapons that a certain female presidential candidate would like to turn the planet to dust with, about the same time as some of the major churches are pondering tossing out the Tanakh, along with Peter, in order to give more emphasis to modern interpretations of Paul.
Not that such is necessarily a good interpretation, but history is rarely as cut and dry as it seems millenia later. People live and love, breathe and sleep around, chance events happen, and only in hindsight is the path clear. I see no reason why it should have been any different for early Judeo-Christians, let alone their successors.
Then again, it's 8am, and I've just read hundreds of pages on the grammar of emotion and the foundations of human hearing, so I may be prone to look for something a bit less dull than that at the moment. Would you believe I'm actually forced to implement parts of this shite myself because the left hand doesn't care what the right hand is doing, as long as both hands are getting paid? 
Health,
al-Aswad.
< Message edited by Aswad -- 5/4/2008 11:28:57 PM >
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: Gorean Moral Values - 
Profile
I wouldn't mind having a few girls like that around. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread