Rabbinic Judaism Inc. - A Portable God for the World’s First Multinational Business!

http://unorthodoxjew.blogspot.com/2005/12/rabbinic-judaism-inc.html

Posted Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - The UOJ Archives - Click On Above Link to View The Comments Posted in 2005

Are You Better Off Today Than You Were 6 Years Ago?

Sources:

Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (Phoenix Grant, 1987)
Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion (Pluto Press, 1994)
Dan Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew (Harper Collins,1992)
Henry Hart Milman, The History of the Jews (Everyman, 1939)
Josephus, The Jewish War (Penguin, 1959)
Leslie Houlden (Ed.), Judaism & Christianity (Routledge, 1988)
Karen Armstrong, A History of Jerusalem (Harper Collins, 1999))
Jonathan N. Tubb, Canaanites (British Museum Press, 1998)
Norman Cantor, The Sacred Chain - A History of the Jews (Harper Collins, 1994)

The Way of The Rabbi

Whatever daughter religions might spin off from old Judaism, the parent religion itself had inevitably to refashion itself for the new era. After the disaster of 135 AD, a number of Jews retreated into asceticism, banning meat and wine altogether, since sacrifice in the temple was no longer possible. Others lost themselves in mysticism, attempting to reach the ‘celestial throne’ via their imagination, the forerunners of the later ‘Kabala’.

But for all their suffering, most Jews were not ready to bastardise their traditional creed by infusing it with the dying godman mythology. The vacuum was filled by ‘Rabbinic Judaism’, the inheritor of the Pharisee tradition.

"The rabbis, a smallish group (perhaps a hundred or so in the whole Roman empire) of religious specialists descended from the Pharisees, gradually enhanced their status and developed a specifically Jewish way of arguing, which marked them off quite dramatically from both Christians and Romans." (Keith Hopkins, A World Full of Gods, p234)

In Palestine itself, where the Jews were now a minority, what remained of traditional Judaism turned inward. No longer could its priests use the ‘temple magic’ once used to summon divine favour, no longer could Judaism be proselytised.

The Rabbis became ‘clericalised’ – obsessed with cultic ‘rules’ as a practical substitute for the lost temple. They peopled the air itself with beneficent and malign spirits. A Jewish ‘code to live by’ - the Mitzvoth (the forerunner of ‘monastic rules’) detailed no fewer than 613 rules, governing every pious moment from waking to sleeping, to keep the Jew on the right side of an all-seeing God.

‘His rising from his bed, his manner of putting on the different articles of dress, the disposition of his fringed tallith, his phylacteries on his head and arms, his ablutions, his meals, even the calls of nature were subjected to scrupulous rules – both reminding him that he was of a peculiar race, and perpetually reducing him to ask the advice of the Wise Men, which alone could set at rest the trembling and scrupulous conscience.’ (Milman, History of the Jews, p165)

Within a few generations Judaism would be codified anew, into a portable (albeit confining) religion which could accompany and – fatally – identify this pseudo-race in their wanderings in the centuries ahead. By the close of the fifth century, the total population of Jews would be half of what it was at the beginning of the ‘Christian era’.(See, Cantor, ibid)

The Jewish people – dispersed but bonded by an exclusive faith, uniquely among ‘peoples’ – established enclaves in every major city from India to Spain, from Arabia to Britain. Capitalising upon this network of ‘safe havens’, and with a filial presence in every major resource, from African ivory to Germanic slaves, the Jews threw themselves into the commerce of the ancient world.

Jewish merchants traversed with impunity the hostile frontiers between Rome and Persia, sailed the sea lanes from the chilly rivers of Germany to the balmy seas off the Horn of Africa. The Jews became dealers in amber and fur, gold and silver, slave-traders and money-lenders.

But they were also dealers in superstition as well as produce:

‘The empire swarmed with Jewish wonder-workers, mathematicians, astrologers, or whatever other name or office they assumed or received from their trembling hearers.’ (Millman, History of the Jews, p158)

Levies on their new wealth paid for a programme of synagogue building, and in turn, the synagogues strengthened the bonds of the Jewish communities. Rarely assimilating into their host cultures, convinced they were especially favoured by the deity (and thus strengthened in their faith), the heady mix of piety and mercantilism rewarded the Jews with an unparalleled financial success – and an unequalled and universal opprobrium.
Posted by Paul Mendlowitz at Saturday, June 04, 2011

Why I hate friends who can't relate- false story tellers

Well why not hate them... they probably deserve it-don't you think?

They are so annoying as they pretend to have no story.......

Those I know usually have very strong and deeply held story BUT refuse to share (in an open and honest human Christian interaction of equals) and thus maintain a false story on the surface which means .... you don't really know them. Goffman (sociologist, symbolic interactionist) describes it in terms of front-stage and backstage, all are actors in the creation of the narrative of life. Goffman exposes / describes the fracture between the 'contradictory' stories that people tell by calling us to observe both front AND back stage.

You can never know those who have a hidden / unspoken story, an untold story or a false story. As followers of the Messiah Jesus our story should be embedded in HIS story and thus HIS narrative forces all those who declare allegiance to HIM to bring their story and lay it at HIS feet -the feet of the brothers and sisters we intersect / interact with. It is only then my history is validated and slips into the Jesus narrative.

I want a Jesus story in my life.....don't you.

Trying out Adobe Contribute blogger writer....

Yes you can blog with Contribute ....seeems good to me

Living Together (Cohabitation) v Marriage

I was thinking recently that a good analogy of church v community is the practice of people living together rather than getting married. Many couples today choose to 'live together'. I was talking to a couple recently who had lived together for a few years and then decided to marry. I asked why had they not just got married. The answer came from the wife who said ..'well you need to live together to see if your compatible and to test the waters first'. And why had they married, ' it seemed like the right thing to do now', she continued.
This started me thinking of church and why Christians attend religious services and will not however commit to community or a shared life with the beauty of the 'one another' verses intertwined into their daily lives. As I looked at this couple I wondered why people are so afraid to commit to something which has stood the test of time. The stats more stats for people who cohabit and then marry are bad however. A big chunk break up after only a few years and so the process starts again, I wonder how does this affect any children? What does it say about relationships to the children? How much damage does it do to them?

Anyway, they find another partner who they will now live with but not commit to and are usually less likely to marry them after the failure of the first marriage. Of course many people NEVER take the get married stage and they just break up. They conclude, '...that was lucky- we could have been married', thank God we were only living together. Thus 'failure' is the proof of the 'correctness' of 'living together' . I guess we all like a backdoor out or do we?


Does this sound like church or what!

Most believers are living together to test the waters and never intend to go beyond this. There is no need to go beyond and get into some stronger bond when 'all' needs are met in the weaker bond. BUT is this true? Are my needs met in the weaker bond?
Talk to me

Ekklesia v Church

I must admit that I have been wrong in my understanding of the word 'church'. I have for all of my christian life taught that we should distinguish the various usages of this word. I often talked about the Irish words/ phrases 'teach on pobail' and 'pobail dé' to show the difference. 'Teach on pobail' means the house of the people and 'pobail dé' means the people of God. So I encouraged believers to distinguish between these two meanings. We are the church we are not a building- but people. Of course when ever anyone said church I would automatically add building, when they were referencing the building. For instance see that church- I would interrupt and say you mean church building don't you. So all of my believing life I have insisted that in my presence you do this because I wanted to reinforce the fact that we are a living body and not dead stones.

Anyway
I recently done a talk at a conference in the USA - Searching Together- with Jon Zens and my subject was the word Ekklesia- its meaning. However in the NT translations ( except for Tyndale and maybe one other) it is translated 'church' So I delved in a bit further and found the following interesting bits of knowledge.

The word Ekklesia has no relation whatsoever to the word 'church', in fact it means assembly or congregation or better still the asembley of the Lord ( referencing the OT use of qahal translated in the Septuagint as ekklesia. In Matthew Jesus indicating that He was replacing the OT congregation of the Lord states 'I will build MY congregation'

The etymology of the word church however is what shook me. It came into usage in 300+ AD when the house where the believers met was called 'church'. The word comes from two greek words Kurios and Oikos meaning Lord's house. It was used by the now very institutionalised religious to name the institution and buildings. So in reality the word 'church' does mean the buildings and by extension the 'institutions' . When with the discovery of printing the bible was translated into German the word Kirch was used to translate 'ekklesia'. Again this was the word that described those involved with and the actual institution of the religious, the priests and, bishops and popes and the political power structures that had involved over the previous centuries.

Tyndale when he started translating the bible into English translated ekklesia as congregation. This was a mistake, the establishment came down on him like a tonne of bricks. And he had to flee and hide most of the time he was involved with translating the scriptures. He finally gave his life and was hung and burned. A year later his work was released under the title Matthew's Bible BUT it had been altered to suit the institution to keep their power structures in place. The word ekklesia was now once again 'church'. King James insisted that the word church be uses of the Greek word ekklesia in the King James version of 1611. He laid down various stipulations about the translation and this was one of them.

So the word 'church' which has no biblical basis whatsoever was placed in the NT to maintain the powerful institution of the religious at this time.
The question is why with the increase of scholarship in this area and the reality that the word ekklesia means community WHY is it still been translated by the word 'church' which is a bastard word of human construction. For example we have many words that we use to describe the fair sex,
babe
dish
boo
honey
bitch
and many more you can fill the rest yourself, as I am sure you have some local varieties. However I do not imagine that you would translate any passage in the scriptures with any of the above.
In the beginning God created males and babes, ...mmmm I don't think so. Babes should be silent in the ekklesia.....mmmm I don't think so. BUT WHY NOT?

Because even though we know these words are commonly used of women they ae not in the scripture and also they are power words created to subjugate women or describe them in purely sexual terms. In other words they are offensive and are inappropriate in transltion. BUT the word 'church' is an inappropriate word also BUT is still in there and loving it.

Crap

you can only take so much crap before you need to crap yourself

Viola is missing the point in new book-From here to Eternity

Having finished reading Frank Viola's new book- From here to eternity, I must say I was disappointed in the way it developed and the way it ended with no serious treatment of the 'humanity' of God's creation. He reminds me a lot of the latter rain writers who were preoccupied with the symbolic meanings of the OT in particular- Viola has extended this to the NT. What I was looking for was a 'human interest' -God so loved...-story but all I got was some insights into jargon and 'hidden spiritualities' . Viola uses the various symbolic representations of the scripture to talk about US -yes you and me- the people of God but without bringing then fully down to earth- in humanity.

He starts with the 1st Eve and then US the 2nd Eve. Jesus is seeking a bride - a woman if you will- to love and He the lonely bachelor finds it in US. A wife worthy of Himself.

The Father is seeking a dwelling place- yes that's US as well. Finally He gets it in a city Whose maker and builder is GOD, well US for sure.

He is also seeking a family it appears and sons ( and daughters I presume) to carry on His name. AND He finds His family in Christ- US.

Then finally we have the 'new species' a Viola calls US.. the 3rd race - 'Jew'-'Gentile' and the 'church of God' ( 1 Cor 10:320) we the body of Christ are the new species if you will. or US again.


Okay then were moving now.....
We have women(Eve ? & the Bride?) and children and marriage and sons and daughters and new buildings the city of God, the temple and a new body for His Son Jesus.

BUT I guess if we take an overview of the eternal purpose of our God I think we can say this- He created a world- physical and earthy and populated it somehow with ordinary human beings ( not Martians) and because of sin and our downhill story we ended up in a mess only to be rescued by our great God and through and in Jesus He has reconstituted humanity- a new humanity if you like- a humanity that is the original intention of God. God set out from the beginning to have earth populated by ordinary human beings who live in harmony with Him and each other- where peace reigns and love rules. The Resurrection does not usher in some new form of humanity or produce a new new race with Jesus as the head of some 'spiritual' body of a new race people BUT cements the reality of the eternal purpose of God which was a people who would live for ever and share His life.

Humanity was and is the central occupation of our God- He loves this old world that is US ( he loves the creation as well) BUT it is the people who live on earth that he gave His life for to restore that fallen imprint of the creator -Jesus.

All the symbolic representations are surely about our God seeking to live in relationship with His creation. I think if anyone makes something -anything- it is important to the maker that the intended use/ purpose is fulfilled. God created mankind to have a bunch of people to hang out with and who also liked hanging out with each other.

His purpose was not to create some horrible 'spiritual' reality where people separate their human lives from their 'spiritual lives'. A life where our humanity is subjugated to so called 'spiritual' callings and realities. Viola dealt adequately with the symbols BUT did not transform them into the actual realities they were speaking about.