Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Gamaliel & Paul! 


I’d like to juxtapose two sets of verses from the New Testament of the Bible to delineate the character of a teacher and his pupil:
Acts Chapter 5 poignantly portrays Gamaliel based on a situation where Peter and other Christians preached Jesus, thus:
34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
At Acts 26 Paul testifies about himself thus:
9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.
So this is what Paul did, by his own admission. He persecuted the Christian believers and even went to the extent of getting them death sentence. Paul says ” he compelled them to blaspheme”! 
So why did Paul do these things? 
He says at Philippians 3:6 thus:
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
At Acts 22:3, Dr. Luke says that Paul spoke thus:
3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
So Paul was brought up as a student of the same Gamaliel referred to above. Gamaliel cites two examples and arrives at the conclusion that both Theudas and Judas of Galilee had declared themselves to have been more than mere mortals, yet their end showed that they were mere mortals who had their time in the sun for a while and faded into oblivion. But at the same time Gamaliel cautions the Jews that, if what the Apostles said about Jesus were to be true, why take the unwarranted risk of opposing God? 
Despite Paul having been schooled by Gamaliel, while Paul was still Saul, he did not imbibe the moderate attitude of Gamaliel. 
The difference between Gamaliel was this: while Gamaliel did NOT want to be wrong; Saul believed that his belief was True and hence not only asserted his beliefs but defied anyone who went against his Pharisaical upbringing. 
Saul of Tarsus wanted to find the Truth and took those beliefs to the extremes! 
I believe Gamaliel was able to impart knowledge but NOT THE WISDOM, which made Saul of Tarsus do the things which he did against the Believers in Christ. 
Saul had a gory past, which along with his oft repeated accomplishments as a human being, stickler to the Mosaic law, being a Roman citizen and thus entitled to certain privileges, is interspersed. Naturally he has to glorify the Grace more than Jacobean ‘Works’, along with Peter, whose imperfections are well documented. 
In Christianity there is an inherent conflict between WORKS and GRACE and if one examines the putative lives of the votaries of each, the past life of each of the votaries has a significant bearing. 
Had Gamaliel been converted to Christianity, as I presume there is nothing contrary to that assumption of mine from the Bible, I believe that Gamaliel would have rooted for the WORKS a trifle more than GRACE. But why Gamaliel was not the recipient of such an epiphany as Paul on his way to Damascus, depends on how virulently one takes an ideological position. In Gamaliel’s life there was Liberty, but Saul of Tarsus not only bound himself with the Mosaic law but also virulently imposed it on others and worse still inflicted punishment on those who digressed. This virulence called for course correction and the epiphany happened. Moderation is the foundation of Liberty, methinks⚖️

Advertisements

I’d like to juxtapose two sets of verses from the New Testament of the Bible to delineate the character of a teacher and his pupil:
Acts Chapter 5 poignantly portrays Gamaliel based on a situation where Peter and other Christians preached Jesus, thus:
34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
At Acts 26 Paul testifies about himself thus:
9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.
So this is what Paul did, by his own admission. He persecuted the Christian believers and even went to the extent of getting them death sentence. Paul says ” he compelled them to blaspheme”! 
So why did Paul do these things? 
He says at Philippians 3:6 thus:
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
At Acts 22:3, Dr. Luke says that Paul spoke thus:
3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
So Paul was brought up as a student of the same Gamaliel referred to above. Gamaliel cites two examples and arrives at the conclusion that both Theudas and Judas of Galilee had declared themselves to have been more than mere mortals, yet their end showed that they were mere mortals who had their time in the sun for a while and faded into oblivion. But at the same time Gamaliel cautions the Jews that, if what the Apostles said about Jesus were to be true, why take the unwarranted risk of opposing God? 
Despite Paul having been schooled by Gamaliel, while Paul was still Saul, he did not imbibe the moderate attitude of Gamaliel. 
The difference between Gamaliel was this: while Gamaliel did NOT want to be wrong; Saul believed that his belief was True and hence not only asserted his beliefs but defied anyone who went against his Pharisaical upbringing. 
Saul of Tarsus wanted to find the Truth and took those beliefs to the extremes! 
I believe Gamaliel was able to impart knowledge but NOT THE WISDOM, which made Saul of Tarsus do the things which he did against the Believers in Christ. 
Saul had a gory past, which along with his oft repeated accomplishments as a human being, stickler to the Mosaic law, being a Roman citizen and thus entitled to certain privileges, is interspersed. Naturally he has to glorify the Grace more than Jacobean ‘Works’, along with Peter, whose imperfections are well documented. 
In Christianity there is an inherent conflict between WORKS and GRACE and if one examines the putative lives of the votaries of each, the past life of each of the votaries has a significant bearing. 
Had Gamaliel been converted to Christianity, as I presume there is nothing contrary to that assumption of mine from the Bible, I believe that Gamaliel would have rooted for the WORKS a trifle more than GRACE. But why Gamaliel was not the recipient of such an epiphany as Paul on his way to Damascus, depends on how virulently one takes an ideological position. In Gamaliel’s life there was Liberty, but Saul of Tarsus not only bound himself with the Mosaic law but also virulently imposed it on others and worse still inflicted punishment on those who digressed. This virulence called for course correction and the epiphany happened. Moderation is the foundation of Liberty, methinks⚖️


Read more: https://www.scribd.com/book/171094303

PHILOSOPHY


Movid's Weblog

The following is the analysis of Philosophy and the evolution thereof according to Nietzsche:-

In every philosophical school, three thinkers succeed one another in the following way: the first produces out of himself the sap and seed, the second draws it out into threads and spins a synthetic web, the third waits in this web for the sacrificial victims that are caught in it- and tries to live off philosophy.

Nothing can be truer than this epigrammatic statement. Let us take the example of the trio Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had to consume hemlock before his Philosophy sprouted in the youth of Athens. Plato drew the thread and spun the synthetic web of UTOPIA and Aristotle with his ETHICS waited with hope for the sacrificial victims.

Let us come to Christianity, where Jesus produced out of himself the sap and seed, then Peter spun the web…

View original post 93 more words

Samson & Agamemnon!


Both valorous and courageous but, to the guile of women, fell victim. Samson was felled for Power for the Philistines; & Agamemnon for the stolen pleasures of his unchaste wife Clytemnestra. 
Tragedy is that both Delilah and Clytemnestra had come into some other male influence in the absence of Samson and Agamemnon. The Philistine Lords were able to undermine Samson in the eyes of Delilah. She being a Philistine thought too well of the cunning Philistine Lords and helped them denude Samson of his power- a power unmatched by any man, mentioned in the Bible. Delilah had become like a steel which has lost its magnetic power once the wires of induction around it had been removed. Her overestimation of the power of the Lords and her kinship with them Led to that loss of respect towards Samson. Samson lacked the guile to measure the unfathomable depths of a woman’s guile. Like a moth drawn to the flame to its own decimation, Samson, barters the fact of where his strength lay without realising that it wasn’t a question of Delilah’s curiosity but intelligence gathering. 
In the case of Agamemnon, it is worse. His wife had developed intimacy with Aegisthus and had been emboldened by that untrammelled intimacy in the absence of Agamemnon, to kill the victoriously returning Agamemnon, in collusion with Aegisthus. Clytemnestra had lost all her moorings of her matrimonial devotion during the long absence of her Lord
Homer in Book xi of the ODYSSEY, makes a parade of the dead souls in the HADES and the Protagonist Ulysses (Odysseus, in the Epic) is advised thus by Agamemnon : 
“Then from a wretched friend this wisdom learn,
E’en to thy queen disguised, unknown, return;
For since of womankind so few are just,
Think all are false, nor e’en the faithful trust.”
Probably these words of advice made Ulysses take all the precautions in the matter of Penelope. The trouble in life is that, in most cases, till one dies, one doesn’t know whether one had a Penelope or a Clytemnestra for his wife. Homer’s Epic had survived the onslaught of Time, not for nothing. 
Let us get in Shakespeare, who brilliantly brings out the dilemma of Othello. Desdemona seems innocent but the proof of the handkerchief in his hands challenges Othello’a belief in Desdemona’s innocence. In real time, sexual jealousy and an implacable sense of betrayal crowds his mind and elbows out the benefit of doubt due to Desdemona. 
Alternatively look at Hamlet’s plight, he is dithering between the factuality of the intimations of his father’s ghost and his inability to ascribe and believe that Claudius was his father’s murderer. Gertrude’s faćade intervenes! His indecision peters to inactivity and finally does Hamlet in. 
Look at the formula of Homer: 
“Think all are false, nor e’en the faithful trust, even though a few are just”
A formula he provides to Ulysses, as he would also have to return to his matrimonial home after a long absence! 
What is the prescription? 
Mentally think that the ALL women are false – make no exception merely because she is yours! Therefore trust NOT even though they might be faithful. The woman being faithful is not in your hands, that being so, why TRUST any woman at all?
Henry VIII, was an example who excelled in it. He went a step further, he decimated each of those whom he perceived to have digressed from his perception of faithfulness! If Samson had intelligence on the Philistine Lords having communed with Delilah in his absence, would he have spared Delilah? Nay! 
That’s what exactly happened in the case of Catherine of Aragon with Henry VIII. 
Look at what the wise Ulysses does? He enters as a suitor in his own house and gauges Penelope’s inclination much before he wins her. Ulysses gives the benefit of doubt to that general presumption of faithlessness of women, as recommended by Agamemnon, who had become the victim of Clytemnestra’s liaison with Aegisthus. That patience coupled with fact finding nature made him a Hero. Let us assume what would have happened if Ulysses had found his wife Clytemnestraish? Would he have decimated her like Henry VIII? Nay! I believe Ulysses would have engaged the man to an honourable duel defeated the man, may be killed him, and would have reclaimed Penelope. Whether he would have had the marital bliss thereafter? That could be another story to tell. Would a Clytemnestraish Penelope be happy in such an end of her lover, at the hands of her peripatetic husband? Another story again. 
There is an underlying GOODNESS TO PEOPLE AND THEIR PERCEPTION and that is TRUST. Without that Life cannot exist notwithstanding our cherry picked examples, both from scriptures and art! 


Moses’ first forty years are recorded and thereafter Moses’ history starts at 80 and lasts for the third 40 years, the most eventful and the most religiously believed history.
Moses and his encounter with God in the burning bush happens at 80.
The first 40 years of the life of Moses was spent in the palace of Pharoah. Moses, being then thought of as born to the Pharoah’s sister was educated in all types of knowledge, especially the esoteric knowledge of the Magicians in the Egyptian courts.
To understand the esoteric knowledge of the Egyptians one has look at the plagues.
The first plague was BLOOD, second was FROGS.
Let us stop here.
The Egyptian magicians were able to perform, rather aggravate these plagues as they also converted all water founts and pools to blood. Likewise, the Egyptian Magicians were able add more frogs to the ones declared by Aaron and Moses.
From the third plague LICE ( Gnats, as per certain versions) the Egyptian magicians were UNABLE TO REPEAT WHAT MOSES DID.
There was this acceptance of failure to replicate the third plague, by their own admission by the Egyptian magicians.
Exodus Chapter 8 reads thus:
18 And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not: so there were lice upon man, and upon beast.
19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

It doesn’t end with this. Till now all the three plagues were commonly affecting both the Egyptian cities and Goshen, the ghetto of the Hebrews. But after the third plague, that is in the plague of the FLIES, there is a differentiation of the habitation of the Egyptians and the Hebrews. Confer the following verses:

22 And I will sever in that day the land of Goshen, in which my people dwell, that no swarms of flies shall be there; to the end thou mayest know that I am the LORD in the midst of the earth.
23 And I will put a division between my people and thy people: to morrow shall this sign be.

To simplistically state that Moses’ life after forty was eventless till eighty may be a Truth simpliciter, but it is in those forty years that Moses had the exposure of the religion of his father in law Jethro and Moses’ consciousness went beyond the knowledge of the Egyptians. Moses must have realised that there was a HIGHER TRUTH than the ones he had been taught at the palace of the Pharaoh. That crumbling of the existing knowledge and the resurgence of a higher knowledge what made him reach Jehovah.
To prove this point I need to refer to the book of Job, which is putatively written by Moses. The book of Job describes the life of a righteous man, who maintained probity yet was not spared the travails and vicissitudes of human existence. Upon completion of a period, falsely interpreted by those ‘religionists’ as when Job realised that it is not the works but Grace of God that health returned to him along with a double portion of all that he had before bad times befell him. Be that as it may. Moses learnt that there was more than “GOODNESS” that was required to endure the misfortunes and become resurgent. It was that understanding which paved the way for Moses to meet his Lord. Thereafter it was a ‘communion’ which empowered him beyond his earlier knowledge and his later understanding of Jethro’s religion.
Moses, according to Jehovah, would become GOD TO PHARAOH!
Cf. Exodus 7:1
And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

I presume that Moses having been taught the knowledge of the magicians of the Egyptian courts had to go beyond the divination arising out of the heavenly bodies and their effects upon human affairs. Moses’ survival for 40 years taught him draw nigh to an understanding that the power of the Creator was and must be greater than the effect of The Creator’s creation of the heavenly bodies and made a connection with that God, Jehovah, when He appeared to him in the burning bush. All the past knowledge became SUBSERVIENT TO THE TRUST MOSES WAS ABLE TO REPOSE ON JEHOVAH.
When Jesus says that at Mark 11:23
King James Bible
For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

Moses was able to arrive at that core of Jehovah’s Faith, which went beyond the knowledge of the Egyptian Pharaohs: the RELIGION OF FAITH.
I believe that Moses was able to approximate to it to be drawn to the religion of Faith, as he was successful in unlearning the Egyptian knowledge and also understand the limitations of that knowledge through the religion of his father in law Jethro.
In effect he was able to perform ‘miracles’ which the magicians were unable to duplicate and when the fourth plague onwards Moses was able to provide IMMUNITY TO THE HEBREWS.

Resumé


Abner, despite having been the Chief of the Army of Israel under King Saul, which I believe was more because of his kinship with Saul than his fighting skills alone, DID NOT HAVE A RESUMÉ, like that of David, soon after the latter defeated Goliath.
Resumé is assiduously built based on the opportunities presented, embraced and utilised, for display of one’s skills honed in idle hours!
What stopped Abner from offering to Saul that he be nominated to combat Goliath?
Fear – Fear of losing. Lack of a Plan backed by appropriate skills. Abner had become the head of the armed forces and to indulge in a dogfight was neither befitting his stature (or so he must have thought) nor a wise move. Abner avoided, where David embraced and succeeded. That success was entered in his Resumé. David did not win wars for Saul, but built a name for himself as a protector of the Hebrew tribes. He became the alternative to Saul as a brand in the minds of the Israelites! That’s why after David ruled in Hebron, that the same Abner, for whom he had carried parched grams, figs and honey, was made to sever the matrimonial links between Michal and her enfeebled husband – whose name my subconscious doesn’t want to remember with certainty – could it be Phlatiel- was made to pimp for David “THE SHEPHERD” !
David had a Resumé, that the Jews have carried his ideals till date, under his name ‘David’.

Tag Cloud