[The New Testament co-opposition of responsibilities3(2()) and freedom2(1) captures a moment of redefinition.
The bondage to the words of the Judaic law ended.
By choosing3b the way of Jesus2b, a converted Jew was more free1a to pursue “his” preferences in selecting responsibilities3a.
Ironically, the less political people of Christ’s way produced more wealth than the very political and wealth-devouring Jewish or Roman elites of the time.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[The average first century Jew could not live up to the multitudinous and litigious obligations of ritual purity.
Religious, tribal and family obligations depleted individuals of resources and inspiration.
Something2a would eventually give.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Paul served his own delusion in words and bondage.
In the mirror of his world3a, Paul desired1a to be recognized as morally superior to his inadequate peers2a.
When Paul spoke to himself, he addressed his mirror of the world3a.]
[Before his conversion, Paul was not so different from other members of the Jewish elite. He yearned for recognition, not for material goods.
What type of recognition?
Paul wanted to be recognized as more righteous than his peers.
He was not covetous, like those other grasping elites.
Oh yes, he was better.
He enforced the Law.]
[Plus, there are three types of desire: the desire to approach, the desire to avoid, and the desire to not be bothered.
I cannot approach my inadequacy in fulfilling the laws as interpreted by the Saducees and Pharisees2a.
I cannot avoid my inadequacy in fulfilling the laws as interpreted by the Saducees and Pharisees2a.
But, I can desire not to be bothered by it.
Weirdly, this supports the modern notion of “freedoms” as negative rights. The original American constitution establishes the freedom not to be constrained by the state (religion).]
[What does this mean?
‘Something2a’ was my inadequacy in fulfilling the laws as interpreted by the Saducees and Pharisees2a.
What does that have to do with desire1a?
Desire1a is a possibility inherent in me1a, but it is not the only possibility.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Complicated rules for ritual purity facilitated a bondage of perpetual inadequacy2a(1a).
The Judean elite mirror of the world3a brought ‘something2a’ into relation with the possibilities inherent in me1a.
‘Something2a’ was my inadequacy in fulfilling the laws as interpreted by the Saducees and Pharisees2a.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[At the time of Christ, the mirror of the world3a reflected family and tribal traditions plus religious demands of ritual purity.
‘Something2a’ attempted to satisfy the words and the bondage of these thought experiments.
‘Something2a’ attempted to satisfy the expectations of tribe or family plus the religious expectations of ritual purity.
So the possibilities inherent in me1a were capped by a double burden.
Weirdly, this supports the modern notion of “freedom” as not being constrained by tribal, family or ritual obligations.]
[Obligations went from responsibilities to words.
The words of the Law put the majority in bondage.
Common folk (the so-called “deplorables”) were required to meet traditional family and tribal obligations.
They were never adequate when it came to ritual purity. They were good people, but they were cast as losers
All they could hope for was to avoid accusations of thinkanti-object, that is, rumors that would ruin one’s life and relations.
Does that sound vaguely familiar for today’s (2017) America?]
