(urth) Latro

[Lee]

>Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: 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.


Sure, of course. Makes sense.


>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.


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.