Dave W: I guess it’s ok. I look pretty snippy in the msg I sent you, but, what the heck

I reply: Not at all, from my view. When I saw your first reply, I was immediately repentant, being so proud as I am of how universal I consider muself to be —- and how easily I can slide right over and sit at the feet of a guiding spirtual leader of other “traditions” such as Gandhi, who I thought had more “Christian” morals and faith than the vast majority of Christians, or the Buddhist monk Hanh Thich Nhat (who wrote a book , among others, called “Living Buddha, Living Christ”. Its’ funny (not really), that I have another article that I titled “The Cosmic Christ” that I use to describe what I see as the working of God in all cultures, even those who have not been “mission” targets of Christian missionaries. And , in the context of this discussion we are having, is inappropriately named as it has “Christ” in its name. It’s really about how the whole idea of “the Christ” in a Christian setting is one of “God revealing”, and that this “revealing” has been in action from the get-go, and that God is in constant effort of “self-revelation”, and is engaged EVERYWHERE with ALL people and cultures.

In this context, that of the theological relationship between Jewish faith and Christian faith, there is , and should be, a much more intimate relationship, but the refusal of many Christians to understand what I have tried to express (and many others) about how the same truths can be “realized” within the bounds of many “revelations”, has made “Christ” the dividing point, rather than the “interpretation (or in some cases, RE-interpretation which leads to life” which I believe Jesus sought, as well as many other “reformers” or “renewal advocates” within Judaism have done throughout the ages). While I believe Jesus was somewhat unique and had a historically and theologically significant perspective and authority, I doubt he had the kind of “new religion” that resulted in mind (particularly as it evolved into such a thouroughly Western and “American” expression).

My “theological evolution” quip was, in the same kind of context, an effort to debate an often made “Christian” assumption that other religions must be held to a standard that we do not require of our own: ie. That there be no signs of a conquesting attitude in the Scriptures, and so we must hold ourselves to the light of scrutiny and face the accusations as to why, say, in the book of Joshua, we see a command attributed to God to kill all the inhabitants of a city. I jump to the Christian “later” tradtion because this is the one that should be most authoritative for the Christian audience, not because we can’t find answers much earlier, as with the prophetic books or stories of forgiveness and responding and showing compassion to the enemy that we find also in the “Old” testament. Jesus is obviously the authoritative figure in legitimizing any “interpreting” of Hebrew Scriptures in light of a higher ethic—- higher in the sense of being “higher” than the conquesting figure we see in some stories as the land of Canaan was taken— (and which as I affirmed before, this “higher ethic” came to him from his own Jewish traditions and his explorations of them under the guidance of many teachers