Oh dear.Counsel is trying to win on a technicality, everybody knows who Isaiah 9:6 is talking about.
BTW, this reminds me of a great movie idea.
The pope visits NYC, passes by the infamous sycamore tree, stops and peers into the Abyss, and has Isaiah 9 read en Espanol to the American masses. Then he hops back on his plane and watches the blood red moon out his window on the way home.
Jesus says He fulfills the law, which His audience would have interpreted as the Mosaic Law, but He seems to me to be making reference to Holy Law in a more general "laws of G-d's nature" sense than in a "specific laws created within a particular religious context" sense.
Two things I feel compelled to mention: 1) do we need a different font color for discussing ideas as theo-philosophical aspects of the Scriptural story versus things we think have some basis in historical material reality? and 2) for the record, I am only offering my personal perspectives as a student of the Scriptures, and not as a representative of the UMC or any other religious body, thus they should be taken as "spiritual talk" only, and do not constitute "spiritual advice"
This is the 'ambiguous' problem, if one has to use the word 'seem'. This is why we have over 1,000 Xian cults that feel free to interpret the ambiguous divine words any way they see fit. This was one reason the Mother Church insisted that only they can interpret what the words mean. Of course, their translations don't seem to match what the oldest known texts say -- and as usual, in telling fashion.
I don't think we need a different font or color for that, but perhaps we might want to think about pruning such discussions and grafting them into a new thread? These threads are getting very difficult to maintain continuity of thought with.
Per my construction of the False Dialectic the Sadducees would be considered elite and wealthy Hellenizers, aligned with the Herodians and the Romans, and against the various nationalist factions. And therefore they are genteel, but not goy.All I can say with certainty is that they are often mentioned in the same breath as the Pharisees
As you know, Josephus stated that there were two schools of Pharisees, one which had to be terminated with extreme prejudice, while the other was turned into today's rabbinic Jews, always under the watchful eyes and protection of the Romans, the pope being their Joseph.
So now one has to determine the POV of the moment, as to whether the gospels are representing Pharisees as either nationalists or the opposite.
So here are two more aspects of biblical ambiguity. The proper contextual meaning of 'Gentile', and which Pharisees are being criticized.
The entire subtext of his generalship is that he is constantly having to defend himself against being accused by his fellow Jews of behaving in a suspicious manner as to his war conduct. This the child prodigy who was sent to Rome to play patty cakes with Nero, Poppaea, and likely the Flavians, before returning home and warning his compatriots not to start the war. Then, he manages to survive a typical fate at the hands of the Romans, by proclaiming that Vespasian will be the next emperor. Much like the high priest that was rolled out in a carpet before Vespasian and announced he was the messiah (from the Talmud).May I ask where to find the evidence for this "not fighting too hard" accusation that continues to resurface?
My heart says that law should be reasonable tempered with compassion, and not set in stone in regards to lesser matters. What does 613 laws, most of which were just based upon a pragmatic need to politically invert the culture of one people really have to do with some notion of spiritually? It is all the meddling, social engineering, of elite chimpigs. And the meddling has generally served them well, leaving the rest of us with all the ambiguous mess to clean up.What does your heart say?
As I have speculated elsewhere, Xianity sounds like maybe it was meant to be a bastardized form of Buddhism, to enable a less than beneficent caste system (as is the claim by some for at least, the original school of Buddhism) to be advanced into the realms conquered by Rome.
With the Pali school, so I understand, Prince Siddhartha came to understand that he needed to abandon all ego drives first, before he could truly understand how to live properly and fully actualized in the material world, with priorities properly aligned and controlled. From this perspective I can appreciate the message of Jesus in focusing on the spiritual first, but that, as usual there is too much ambiguity left open to interpretation by those with much to gain.
As humans, 'we' have an excuse, needing repeated iterations to get such things right. But, supposedly, He created all this in the first place, gave us free will, and then killed almost everybody for using their free will. Then the first thing Noah does is get naked drunk.And here I thought the question was, "why couldn't we"