To Oliver

Submitted by Seamus Dafydd Dives MacNemi (United States), Oct 19, 2009 at 16:24

It is not only a matter of having the "correct G-D" it is also a matter of having the "Correct view" of that G-D. The G-D of Israel is a unity, a sum that is greater than its parts. That G-D cannot be divided or represented by any part but That G-D is the "whole". That G-D is both the manifest and the potential. That G-D is the center of the circle, the beginning point and the end point. That G-D is beyong definition or limitation. That G-D cannot be described or defined in any way beyond total inclusivity. There is nothing out side of G-D.

It is very difficult to address the idea of G-D in the language of men for the language of men is of necessity limited to the experience of men. That is precisely the problem with the written word. It is limited in its ability to encompass the reality. The written word will always be subject to the interpretations of the reader and often the reader will infer ideas that will not reflect the original intentions of the writer. Much of the New Testament is problematic for that reason. Entirely too much of it is dependent opon the prejudice of the writers and the ideas of their time and place. Said ideas being totally foreign to the original intent of the authors of the Torah.

The New Testament pays little attention to the social and political realities of Jeshuas time. It falsy represents the relationsips between the Sadducees and the Pharisees and the many other splinter groups that vied for the attentions of the people. Indeed, it fails all together to even mention some groups which would play a pivital role in events to come. When Yeshua said that the Temple would not long last after him he was only remarking upon events that were already in the wind. Again, the New Testament makes no mention of the rampant corruption in the governing bodies of that time.. No remark is made of the questionable legitimacy of the high priest Caiphas or the majority of those who made up the acting body of the priesthood. No mention is made of the neglect of the needs of the people in favour of Roman priveledge and political power. No mention is made of the Pharissean attempts to aleviate the suffering of the people or of the various charities enacted under the eyes of the Romans even though these same regarded these charities as an expression of the will to rebellion and therefore illegal under Roman law. In some instances, keeping a commandment would be regarded as a capital offense which could get one crucified.

Roman rule kept the people in a continuous state of deprivation. Even an act as simple as greeting a friend or neighbor in the streets could be regarded with suspiscion by the Roman authorities and their Jewish collaborators. The people lived under a pall of constant fear and there seemed little hope of deliverence for them. They would have accepted anyone who offered them some semblance of hope and into that milieu Jeshua rose. It is little wonder that he gathered such a following and in that same light it is little wonder that the Romans crucified him. They greatly feared him as an instigator of rebellion.

My own trouble with the New Testament is that it fails completely to put the blame where it rightly lies, upon the backs of Rome and the Hellenists. It was they who were the source of all of the suffering of the people and that suffering had continued to this day. Only with the rewriting of the New Testament will this suffering be aleviated. Until that time the great injustices of our history will be continuously repeated.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".