Latro

Sounds also like a summary of the entire Sun series to me.

I think David was just providing an example to direct our attention to the Greek root word with the prefix tagging along for the ride. [Edit- ah yes, David confirms this] Since, as Dan'l mentions, "latria" is an important word in Catholicism, I find it completely plausible that Wolfe had both the thief and worship meanings in mind.

Was Jesus, who had his own head wound, not crucified, flanked by two "thieves"? Jesus' ministry was an attack on the prevailing Judaic religion of his time. And Jesus had his own fit of anger in the Temple. Wolfe has cited this episode, where Jesus whips the moneychangers, as evidence The Saviour had spent some time as a torturer.

"Both" is the perfect description of the relationship between Barbatus & Famulimus and Severian. Not to mention that Tzadkiel him/herself owns to having been Severian's acolyte in a previous iteration.

Ummmm. Not to be argumentative, but, no, Jesus' ministry was not an attack on Judaism; to the extent that it was an attack at all, it was an attack on the hypocrisy of the priestly class. But Jesus did not see himself as destroying Judaism ("...not one jot or tittle of the Law shall be taken away...") but fulfilling it.

I won't take it as argument but as a point of discussion. It wasn't the main point of my post, so I didn't elaborate. But in fairness I didn't just say "Judaism", I said:

By which I meant the practice of Judaism as administered by the priestly class of Judea. The Sanhedrin made it clear they weren't happy with Jesus' ministry and considered it a threat. Even today, there are certain Christians AND Jews who deny Jesus was jewish. I think there were times when the words of Jesus imply he considered his goal to be bringing back a lost purity to Judaism. Though the Old Testament consistently implies that the Hebrews were a constant disappointment to God. (small wonder that guilt is an important part of being jewish ;- )) But other times Jesus seemed to acknowledge that he was bringing something new to the table (even if fulfilling ancient prophecy). For some reason Luke 12:51 and Matthew 10-34 come to mind, where Jesus notes that he has not come to bring peace but rather division and a sword- setting family members against each other, etc. I take this as a, if not transparent, then translucent way of Jesus saying that he expected his ministry to create divisions between the jews who were doing things the current way vs. those planning to follow Jesus and how he expected things to be done differently in the future. What changes were expected? No more "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" but rather "turn the other cheek" to use the oft-cited example. There are quite a few homophobic statements, acceptance of polygamy, glorification of war, use of maiming and dismemberment as legal punshments, etc. in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament. So I have to wonder how many wives those Judean priests had......

Actually, there is one notable anti-gay statement in the NT, but it's Paul, not Jesus. And you're right to wonder how many wives the Sanhedrin might have had; Paul says that an elder (presbyter, priest) should have only one.

Yes, Paul has an anti-gay statement. He says that gays are as bad as gossips! Rick From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Dan'l Danehy-Oakes Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 2:38 PM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) Latro Actually, there is one notable anti-gay statement in the NT, but it's Paul, not Jesus. And you're right to wonder how many wives the Sanhedrin might have had; Paul says that an elder (presbyter, priest) should have only one.

I won't take it as argument but as a point of discussion. It wasn't the main point of my post, so I didn't elaborate. But in fairness I didn't just say "Judaism", I said:

By which I meant the practice of Judaism as administered by the priestly class of Judea. The Sanhedrin made it clear they weren't happy with Jesus' ministry and considered it a threat. Even today, there are certain Christians AND Jews who deny Jesus was jewish. I think there were times when the words of Jesus imply he considered his goal to be bringing back a lost purity to Judaism. Though the Old Testament consistently implies that the Hebrews were a constant disappointment to God. (small wonder that guilt is an important part of being jewish ;- )) But other times Jesus seemed to acknowledge that he was bringing something new to the table (even if fulfilling ancient prophecy). For some reason Luke 12:51 and Matthew 10-34 come to mind, where Jesus notes that he has not come to bring peace but rather division and a sword- setting family members against each other, etc. I take this as a, if not transparent, then translucent way of Jesus saying that he expected his ministry to create divisions between the jews who were doing things the current way vs. those planning to follow Jesus and how he expected things to be done differently in the future. What changes were expected? No more "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" but rather "turn the other cheek" to use the oft-cited example. There are quite a few homophobic statements, acceptance of polygamy, glorification of war, use of maiming and dismemberment as legal punshments, etc. in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament. So I have to wonder how many wives those Judean priests had......

No dia 24/04/2015, ?s 19:20, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> escreveu:

Jesus was certainly opposed to the Saducees. There is no dearth of verses chiding them as enemies of God. But not every priest was a Saducee, not even the whole Sanhedrin, and the evidence is that the common Jew didn't do anything regarding religion that Jesus especially condemned.

And Nietzsche questioned if Socrates was Greek!

Doubtless a major change, but let's not male the former worse than it was: it is an injunction by God to not be disproportionate in replying to aggression. Something to heed even today!

And no one is more gossipy than "the gays." Worse than a houseful of wives!

There is that. But what head wound do you mean---from the crown of thorns?

Thanks for that confirming info. I find the proscription against polygamy to be the most anthropological/sociologically profound difference between Christianity and its predecessors and competitors, yet it is so rarely discussed.

I think you are right that there was a special place in Jesus' heart for the common man. But there was (and perhaps still is) a belief among jews of the time that those with wealth, status and power had been specially blessed by God. But over and over, the message of Jesus is that the lofty trappings of wealth and high social status in this world are not only irrelevant to the Kingdom of Heaven but can be seen as signs of disfavor with God. The Eye of the Needle and Good Samaritan parables come to mind as generally critical of the wealthy and the superior, priestly castes of Cohains and Levites. This is what I meant by saying Jesus' ministry was an attack on the prevailing practice of Judaism at the time. It was rather centered around reverence for wealth, power and inherited social status. (There are some arguments that much of Jesus' ministry was a veiled criticism of jewish toleration and veneration of Roman rule but that's controversial and a whole other can of worms to open.)

Lee, Jesus' concern/love for the poor/common man was actually a continuation/ confirmation of what several of the Prophets in the Old Testament had said on the subject. It would not be at all accurate to say that Second Temple Judaism was centered on "reverence for wealth, power, and inherited social status." Indeed, the Law made a number of exceptions, especially in the matter of required sacrifices, for the poor. (The Presentation of Jesus in the Gospel according to Luke illustrates this: when Joseph and Mary take Jesus to be "redeemed" at the Temple, they buy and offer two doves, which is the sacrifice of "those who cannot afford a lamb.") Second Temple Judaism was very much centered on the Law of Cleanliness, or ritual purity. Even a poor man's house would have a mikvah, a basin where you would wash your hands before entering or eating. (It was the water for the mikvah that Jesus turned to wine in the wedding at Cana.) And, yes, Jesus is quite critical of the wealthy who do not care for the poor. In general, His deepest scorn is reserved for hypocrites; consider, for example, the parable of the Goats and Sheep, in which many who claim Him as Lord but did not care for the unfortunate* are told "I never knew you," while those who did care for the unfortunate but didn't know Him are told, "It was Me you served all along." ----- * not only the poor, but the sick, crippled, weak, and imprisoned. ----- The point of the parable of the Good Samaritan is similar: the hypocrisy and selfishness of the Kohain and the Levite are contrasted with the earnest caring of the Samaritan: and it must be remembered that to a Jew of the Second Temple, "Samaritan" was something like "Palestinian" must be to an Israeli today, or like "Black" was to a white South African during the Apartheid days. Someone lesser, unclean, a bit disgusting, and definitely an enemy.

Sure, of course. Makes sense.

Not to be argumentative, but as you note, these were "exceptions" for the poor. Meaning the general rule was that sacrificing a portion of your wealth WAS an essential part of being a good jew, at the time. And who got that portion of your wealth? The ruling class of the priesthood. Concomitantly, if the admiration of personal wealth and power and status wasn't an important part of Judaic religion at the time, why would Jesus spend so much time preaching against it, especially the role of the priestly castes? Aren't such things a part of human nature? Don't we still hear sermons against worshipping money and power? I can't imagine that Judean Hebrews were so different about that than everyone else, including we of modern society. I suspect we are not really in disagreement on this issue. Perhaps it is only a matter of how things are worded.

I no longer go to church, but when I did the sermons were mostly about the importance for Christians to always vote for the Republican party. I remember one sermon about the camel passing through the eye of a needle. The preacher explained that "the eye of a needle" was the name of the gate that the rich used to enter Jerusalem and so the point of the parable is that naturally the rich would use that gate to enter heaven. Rick -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee

Sure, of course. Makes sense.

Not to be argumentative, but as you note, these were "exceptions" for the poor. Meaning the general rule was that sacrificing a portion of your wealth WAS an essential part of being a good jew, at the time. And who got that portion of your wealth? The ruling class of the priesthood. Concomitantly, if the admiration of personal wealth and power and status wasn't an important part of Judaic religion at the time, why would Jesus spend so much time preaching against it, especially the role of the priestly castes? Aren't such things a part of human nature? Don't we still hear sermons against worshipping money and power? I can't imagine that Judean Hebrews were so different about that than everyone else, including we of modern society. I suspect we are not really in disagreement on this issue. Perhaps it is only a matter of how things are worded.

I've heard that about the needle's eye gate, too, but according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle#Gate), there's no real evidence for it.

It was still supposed to be a tight fit even if it was a gate ... the point is you can't get through if you are encumbered with stuff ... maybe that preacher needs some reading comprehension lessons ... not sure which denomination you were, but possibly the most infuriating thing to me about some fundamentalists is they have very poor basic reading skills ... even if one buys into inerrancy (which I certainly don't) it doesnt mean you cant misread ... Ask a fundamentalist if the good samaritan was a real person who actually lived.

I think that preacher knew what he was doing Marc. Rick noted that the main point of the sermons was to "Vote Republican". Reinterpreting the "Camel through the eye of a needle" parable was this preacher's way of undercutting the obvious meaning of Jesus' words and saying "Hey, don't worry if you are rich. You can still go to heaven as easily as anyone else". ">This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite;

Riding a camel, I'm sure. Makes sense!

And in fact plenty of evidence against it, including in ancient (but post-New Testament) Christian writings. I'll restrain myself from commenting on those sermons. Sheesh. Fernando