Newsgroup: it.cultura.religioni
Titolo: Ebrei e Gesú

Una curiositá:
cosa pensano gli Ebrei di oggi della figura di Gesú?
Conosco il pensiero dell'Islam ma non degli ebrei.
E nel caso credano che gesú fosse un falso profeta, loro stanno ancora
aspettando il loro?
Se uscisse una persona ora che facesse miracoli ecc, che si definisse
profeta degli ebrei e fosse accettato dagli ebrei come IL loro profeta, dai
cristiani non sarebbe forse visto, invece, come l'anticristo?
Grazie per la/le risposte.
--
fAraBI

Premesso che, ovviamente, con "Ebrei" si intendano i credenti, e non i meri
appartenenti a  famiglie di origine ebraica i quali ovviamente possono
essere atei, agnostici o di qualsiasi altra religione, questa e' la loro
visione.
Gesu' come un ebreo, al massimo un rabbi. Non "Cristo"
segue l'articolo
WHY JEWS DO NOT ACCEPT "THE CHRIST"
By Rabbi Abraham J. Feldman, D.D.
It seems strange that after nineteen centuries, there are still Christians
and Jews who do not know why Jews are not Christians, why Jews do not
accept the Christ. This question is asked of me at almost every church
group to which I am privileged to speak; and many Jews, especially young
Jews, because they are confronted by this question in school and college,
in business and social relations, are also asking it. This is why I
decided to attempt to give an authoritative Jewish answer to this
question.
Note that I worded the title of this article carefully. I did not
say--"Why Jews Reject Jesus." I said--Why Jews Do Not accept 'The Christ'.
There is a difference between the two. So far as Jesus was concerned, he
was not rejected by Jews or Judaism. In the words of Julius Wellhausen, a
German scholar of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, one who was not
at all sympathetic to Judaism, "Jesus was not a Christian: He was a Jew."
He did not preach a new faith, but taught men to do the will of God; and,
in his opinion as also in that of Jews, the will of God was to be found in
the Law of Moses and in the other books of Scripture. The New Testament
accounts indicate that Jesus was born a Jew of Jewish parents; that he
lived his life, which was brief, as a conscious, convinced, faithful Jew;
that he ministered exclusively to Jews--"I was sent only to the lost sheep
of the House of Israel". (Mathew 15:24); and again,, in the Gospel
according to John (4:22), Jesus is reported as saying that "Salvation is
from the Jews." He worshipped as a Jew, where other Jews worshipped as
they worshipped. When he began to preach, he made it clear: "Think not
that I have come to abolish the law (i.e. the Torah) and the prophets; I
have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to
you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot will pass
from the Law until all is accomplished.
Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments, and teaches
men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but who does them
and teaches them shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven". (Mathew
5:17-19) "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot
of the law to become void." (Luke 16:17)
There was no rejection of Jesus, the man or the teacher. But, he was not
accepted and is not accepted today by Jews, at the valuation which his
disciples placed upon him.
He was one of many preachers in his day in Judea. He was one of many
miracle workers in his day in his country which was Judea. To be sure, his
followers believed that he was the Messiah who came to usher in the
kingdom of God on earth in their day. But the Jewish people of his
generation were not convinced that he was the hoped-for Messiah. and
certainly the Kingdom of God was not established on earth then, neither
has it been established to this day. Despite the fact that the New
Testament speaks of "multitudes" which heard him preach, when the first
Nazerene congregation was organized in Jerusalem after the death of Jesus,
there were according to the book of Acts (1:15), only about 120 people who
were part of it. In other words, in his lifetime, Jesus did not create a
mass movement. His fellow Jews had no reason either for rejecting him or
accepting him. He made no significant impact upon his Jewish
contemporaries.
Again. The title of this article does not say--"Why Jews Do Not Accept
Jesus." I worded it rather, "Why Jews Do Not Accept 'The Christ.'" And
this wording is very deliberate.
Remember, the early Nazarenes (i.e. those who believed that Jesus of
Nazareth was the messiah) , the Jewish Christians in ancient Judea, did
not shock the rest of their fellow Jews. They were Jews in good standing.
They were strictly observant Jews. They were followers of the Torah, the
Law and prophets, and the traditional interpretations of the Torah. They
were respectable members of the community. They differed from the rest of
Jewry only in their belief that the Messiah had met an ignominious death
on the cross, as did thousands of other Jews during the procuratorship of
Pontius Pilate, he had been physically resurrected and they awaited his
momentary reappearance. The major body of Jewry was not convinced either
that Jesus was the Messiah or that the Messiah had come.
But outside of Palestine, there was Paul. Indeed, he spent the greater
part of his life outside of Judea. Paul, who was not one of the twelve
disciples of Jesus, Paul, before the crucifixion and shortly thereafter,
actively opposed the early followers of Jesus. This Paul later had a
change of heart and became a devoted follower of Jesus although he,
personally, had had no personal contact with Jesus, had never spoken to
him and was never spoken to by Jesus. This Paul, after his conversion,
became a missionary to the Gentiles; and he was a zealous, skillful,
tireless missionary. Paul it was who laid the foundations of a new
religion and of a new church, which was not the intention of Jesus and of
which he had no knowledge.
How did Paul do it?
He did it by describing Jesus in a way which no loyal Jew could possibly
accept. The word Messiah is a transliteration of the Hebrew word
"Moshiach", which means "the anointed". Anointing with oil was a method of
consecration. The kings of Judea were always anointed, as are the kings
and queens of England to this day. The high priest in the Temple of
Jerusalem was anointed as are the priests of the Christian church even
now. And the redeemer for whom the people looked to remove from them the
yoke of Roman oppression was to be one who was consecrated to that task;
hence, the word Mosiach or Messiah, i.e. the consecrated one. In Greek,
the word was translated into "Christ". So Paul, writing in Greek, used the
word "Christ" when he spoke of Jesus, the Messiah who he believed had
come. Step by step, Paul departed from the concept of Jesus, the physical
man, whom he did not know, and told of the Christ who appeared to him in a
vision on the road to Damascus when Paul was converted. Step by step,-Paul
moved to a concept of this vision, not the Jesus of the flesh and blood
but of a "heavenly man" whom he beheld in his vision. This supernatural
Messiah or Christ, in Paul's definition, became more and more an integral
part of God, identified with God. "his son, born of woman" (Galatians 4:4)
who was sent to Earth as God's representative with powers and authority
which were divine and, by virtue of his authority, "the Lord of all"
(Romans 10:12) and "Lord both of the dead and of the living" (Romans
14:19).
As Dr. Joseph Klausner of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, in a great
book entitled "From Jesus to Paul", points out, Paul went so far as to
place God and Jesus on the same footing, "grace to you and peace from God
our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Corinthians 1:3) Paul went so far
that twice in his epistle he put Jesus before God: "Now may our Lord Jesus
Christ himself and God our Father." (II Thessalonians 2:16) "The Kingdom
of Christ and of God" ( Ephesians 5:5). He preached "Jesus Christ as Lord"
(II Corinthians 4:5), whereas, the Jews applies the name 'Lord" only to
the One and only God. Paul proceeded in this way until it appears that, as
Klausner put it, "God does not do anything; everything is done by "His
son" the Messiah. Not only so but men 'are' or 'live' not 'in God,' but
'in Christ' His Son... Of course, this, not even Jesus, would ever accept.
The first century world in which Paul lived was a world in many respects
not unlike ours. Society was in turmoil; approaching catastrophe was
sensed. There was awareness of decay, danger, destruction and war.
Paganism was in collapse. There were many people, especially among the
educated in that pagan world, who had a great yearning and were searching
for some kind of escape from the imminent catastrophe. They asked: How can
we be saved? Who will save us? To them, as "apostle to the Gentiles" Paul
went. He told them of the God who came to Earth in person of Jesus Christ,
who died and rose from the dead. And through whose death salvation was
assured to those who believed in him. And so, he urged them: Believe in
him and you will be saved. Paul succeeded in his effort. He gained
followers. He established societies of believers (churches) and thus the
new religion began.
Why do I say the "new" religion?
Because, while Judaism believed in the coming of a Messiah who would
redeem Israel and mankind from the evils of the social order, this
Messiah, however Godly or righteous he would be, was, so Judaism believed,
to be a man, only a man, a human being. This Messiah was not to be the
alter-ego of God, not God incarnated in human form, but a supremely
righteous man. The idea of God appearing in human form meant the surrender
of monotheism, of the belief in one God, a belief which for us Jews is
summarized in what has become the watchword, the motto, and the slogan of
our faith. Sh'ma Yisrael-- "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is
One." (Deut. 6.4) Such surrender, Judaism, neither then nor now, would
make; and the belief that God would appear in human form, Judaism neither
then nor now would accept.
Paul--once started on this road--went on. To make this Christ who was
somehow identified with Judaism, acceptable to the Gentiles, he took the
next step. He abrogated the Torah, the Law and the Prophets and the
traditions of Judaism. He announced that if one believed in this
supernatural Christ, one was free of every obligation to obey the Torah.
He preached, "Now we are discharged from the Law". (Romans 4:6) and
"Christ is the end of the Law (Torah) (Romans 10:4). And, because the
Christ, according to Paul, thus replaced the Torah, there was, therefore,
no longer any need to keep the rite of circumcision, the seventh day
Sabbath, and all the rest of the religious observances of Judaism. Even in
the face of the protests of the Jewish Christians in Palestine amongst
whom were Peter and James, the brothers of Jesus, Paul persisted in his
abrogation of the Torah and the whole religious discipline of Judaism.
Obviously, then, how could the Jews to whom the Torah and the Commandments
were their very life, "their inmost soul"-- how could they accept this new
doctrine enunciated by Paul? And, of course, they did not accept it.
But, though he abolished the Jewish ceremonial observances, it is a fact
that religion needs ceremonies, as all life does. So Paul proceeded to
establish new ceremonies to take the place of what he abrogated. He took,
for instance, two ceremonies, that of Baptism and the Fellowship meal,
(both of these were known to Judaism) and he transformed them into
sacraments. The "Fellowship meal" especially became the Eucharist with
it's dogma of transubstantiation, whereby the bread and wine of the
Fellowship Meal became, literally, the body and blood of Christ. "In this
divine sacrifice", according to the declaration of the Church Council of
Trent in the sixteenth century, "the same Christ is present who offered
himself on the altar of the cross" You have perchance seen the article
which appeared not long ago in the Reader's Digest on "What is Catholic?"
On this question, the author of the article said that from the point of
view of the Catholic Church, "Christ is truly and substantially present in
the Eucharist, body and soul, humanity and Divinity". This, no Jew either
then or now, can even understand--let alone accept it or believe in it.
Space does not permit me to discuss Paul's doctrine of the vicarious
atonement, i.e. that Jesus' death made atonement for the sins of humanity
and that, as one believes in the Christ, one is freed from all sin.
Judaism, then as now, rejects the doctrine that any human being can atone
for the sins of another whilst the sinner goes on his way with a sense of
being absolved of all guilt. Judaism believes that God may forgive the
truly repentant sinner, the sinner who sincerely atones for his own sin;
but, Judaism rejects the doctrine that it is either possible or desirable
to transfer the guilt for sin from one to another or that someone else's
death or suffering can lift the guilt of sin from the sinning individual
or from the sin-laden community.
I have not the space to dwell at proper length on Paul's doctrine of
Christ as the mediator between man and God. This is the meaning of the
formula so often heard in Christian prayer which usually ends with the
words, "Through Jesus Christ our Lord". Judaism, then as now, rejects the
notion that to approach God we need the intercession of someone else, an
intermediary between us and our maker. Our Psalmist voiced Judaism's
belief precisely: "The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to
all that call upon him in truth." (Psalm 145:18) The Lord is nigh unto
all, the humble and the great, the poor and the rich, the weak and the
strong, the ignorant and the learned, the priest and the Rabbi, the
minister and those who are not ordained to any ministry. All can reach out
in prayer to God directly, and if they are sincere, God is as close to all
as breathing. The Talmud tells us that "The Holy one, blessed be he,
requires the heart", and through earnestness, each of us can speak to God
and hope with justification that our prayer will be heard and, if we be
worthy and it be in accordance with His will, that our prayers may be
answered.
You see, Paul proclaimed some doctrines which have become authoritative
Christianity, doctrines of which Jesus knew nothing, doctrines which
Judaism rejected then and rejects today. This new religion which Paul
developed was not the religion of Jesus which was Judaism; it was a
religion about Jesus as a mystical Christ which has become nominative
Christianity. This, Judaism and we, who profess Judaism, cannot accept.
I shall not discuss here the doctrines of Original Sin, the Trinity, the
Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Birth, the Church as the mystical body
of the Mystical Christ. All of these, Judaism rejects.
We remain unequivocal in our faith in the One God of the Universe, the
only God, unembodied, holy, the God whose will is for human righteousness,
the God who proclaimed "Ye shall be holy because I, the Lord your God, am
holy". (Leviticus 19:2)
But, it might be said, Liberal Christians and Liberal Christianity do not
today believe in the mystical Christ or in the Trinity or in the need for
an intercessor, etc. Why not accept this liberal Christianity? The
question of course, is specious and the obvious answer is that even to
Liberal Christians, the Christ remains central in their religious beliefs,
if not as God who assumed human form then--as the most unique person, the
most unique teacher, and the most perfect human being who ever lived. We
Jews see nothing unique about Jesus either in his life or in his teaching.
He was one of many good men in Jewry. He was one of many noble teachers of
Judaism.
We, today, have no quarrel with Jesus the man. We rejoice to acknowledge
that through him (and in all truth, we might add through Paul, too)
Judaism, it's Holy Scriptures, it's prophetic idealism, it's ethical
passion, became known to the whole world. Nevertheless, on the basis of
the facts as we know them and understand them, we cannot and do not place
him above Saadya and Maimonides. We do acknowledge as one who taught
Judaism, taught it skillfully and, admittedly, through circumstances not
of our making, has influenced the minds, hallowed souls and caught the
imagination of a large part of mankind. It pleases us to know
that--considering what Jesus has come to mean to millions of people;
considering the comfort and spiritual reassurance which, in his name,
have been vouchsafed unto so many generations of God's children;
considering the departures from Paganism which his name inspired; I say,
it pleases us to see in this a partial fulfillment of the promise which
God gave to Abraham, the first of our people, "In thy seed shall all the
nations of the Earth be blessed; because thou hast hearkened to my voice."
(Genesis 22:18)

 It seems strange that after nineteen centuries, there are still
.........................
Purtroppo non so l'inglese. hehehe
Grazie comunque.


Provo a tradurre qualche riga, solo le piu' significative, mettendo i
puntini dove salto. Non traduco neppure le citazioni della Bibbia
limitandomi a indicare i versetti. E poi non l'ho finita perche' mi sono
rotto...:)
------------------------------
Perche' gli Ebrei non accettano "il Cristo"
del Rabbino Abraham J. Feldman, D.D.
Sembra strano che dopo nove secoli vi siano ancora Cristiani ed Ebrei che
non sanno perche' gli Ebrei non sono Cristiani e perche' gli Ebrei non
accettano il Cristo. Questa domanda mi e' stata fatta praticamente da ogni
gruppo ecclesiale al quale ho avuto il privilegio di parlare; e molti Ebrei,
specialmente giovani, perche' si ritrovano questa domanda a scuola o nei
loro college, nonche' nel mondo sociale e del lavoro, me la rivolgono.
Questo e' perche' ora tento di dare una autorevole risposta Ebrea a questa
domanda.
Notate che ho usato le parole con molta attenzione scegliendo il titolo di
questo articolo. Non ho detto : "perche' gli Ebrei rifiutano Gesu'". Ho
detto invece :
"Perche' gli Ebrei non accettano "il Cristo"".
C'e' una differenza fra le due frasi. Gli Ebrei o l'Ebraismo non rifiutano
affatto Gesu'. Ricordiamo le parole di Julius Wellhausen ..... :
Gesu' non era un cristiano. Era un Ebreo. Non predicava una nuova fede, ma
diceva agli uomini di fare la volonta' di Dio; e il suo pensiero, come
quello degli Ebrei, era che la volonta' di Dio sia da ricercare nelle Leggi
di Mose' e negli altri testi delle Scritture. Lo stesso Nuovo Testamento
afferma che Gesu' era Ebreo nato da famiglia Ebrea; che visse la sua breve
vita come un consapevole, convinto e fedele Ebreo. Infine che insegno' solo
ad Ebrei (Matteo 15:24)
.......Giovanni (4:22)
..........Matteo (5:17-19)
mi sono gia' rotto. Basta. Compendiando assai continua dicendo che gli Ebrei
accettano Gesu' come un Ebreo che predico' e visse una santa vita Ebrea. Non
lo considerano Figlio di Dio, ne' in senso trinitario cattolico, ne' in
qualsiasi senso cristiano.  E dicono che neppure Gesu' avesse intenzione di
creare una nuova religione (in uno dei passi sopra citati del Vangelo Gesu'
infatti dice che non e' venuto a togliere nulla della vecchia Legge...)
Secondo questto Rabbi il responsabile per la nascita di una nuova religione
fu Paolo, che peraltro non conobbe mai personalmente Gesu'.
Nei confronti di certo Cristianesimo liberale, che non crede piu' alla
trinita' o persino alla divinita' di Cristo, il Rabbino ugualmente non puo'
concordare, perche' in costoro rimane pure sempre centrale la figura del
Cristo. Per gli Ebrei Gesu' non fu altri che uno dei tanti grandi sapienti
dell'Ebraismo.
Anzi finisce lodando Gesu' perche' essendosi diffuso il suo messaggio nel
mondo si e' diffuso anche L'Antico testamento, e tanta parte del mondo ha
cosi' riconosciuto l'Unico Dio abbandonando il paganesimo e l'idolatria.....
ciao

fAraBI wrote:

Gli Ebrei che non accettarono o non accettano Gesù,
(visto che ci sono anche gli ebrei cristiani),
lo hanno fatto e lo fanno, perché attendevano e attendono il Messia per il
_solo_ popolo Ebraico.
Un mascì'ah (messia, unto di Dio) liberatore e Re, che non si sarebbe umiliato
a insegnare la via della Croce.
Un Re di potenza spirituale e _materiale_, che non poteva insegnare
il 5 NON UCCIDERE della Torah,
fino alle estreme conseguenze di mostrare che è preferibile farsi uccidere,
piuttosto che uccidere.
"Il non fare agli altri quello che non vorresti fosse fatto a te",
è lo spartiacque tra <l'Ebraismo apostata delle tavole della legge di Mosè
nel 5 Non uccidere> e il Cristianesimo che le segue fino alla crocifissione.
Non solo il popolo Ebraico che segue la Legge,
ma ogni persona che cerca la verità non per desiderio di dominanza,
ma per desiderio di giustizia, incontrerà Cristo.
Egli è la Porta a YHWH, l'Alfa e l'Omega, il Principio e la Fine.
---
Lino A.M.
P.S.
Auguro con l'occasione buone feste a tutti e
garantisco che rispetto le altrui opinioni con la stessa dignità delle mie.


cut
Il che la dice lunga....
Saluti
St

 infatti dice che non e' venuto a togliere nulla della vecchia Legge...)
Secondo i Cristiani Gesú fu fatto crocifiggere grazie alla complicitá degli
Ebrei.
Il Papa si é scusato per gli eccidi fatti in nome di Dio nelle crociate e
nella canonizzazione del nuovo mondo.
Gli Ebrei hanno mai fatto qualcosa di simile per la crocifissione di cristo?
Grazie di nuovo...
--
fAraBI


Di niente fAraBI,
riguardo alle scuse penso siano una cazzata. Io per quello che ha fatto mio
nonno non chiedo scusa. Sono cazzi di mio nonno. Io, se chiedo scusa, la
chiedo per quello che faccio io.
ciao
Bart

 "Il non fare agli altri quello che non vorresti fosse fatto a te",
La citazione esatta č: "Fare agli altri ciň che vorresti fosse fatto a te":
il senso č "attivo", non "passivo".
Per il resto concordo con quanto hai scritto.
Saluti
Mauro Geranzani
-- 
Posted from 
ppp-62-10-44-19.dialup.tiscali.it
 [62.10.44.19] 
via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

 fAraBI
Ci sono persone come Edith Stein, che diedero la loro vita in offerta del
perdono per il popolo Ebraico,
per la parte che fu complice ed è complice del rifiuto del Messia.
C'è stato un Simposio Internazionale a Roma ottobre 1998 di cui ti indico il
sito:
http://www.ocd.pcn.net/edsi_sle.htm
Qui invece una biografia:
http://www.ocd.pcn.net/ed_it.htm
Per approfondimenti su relazioni con Cermelitani, Gesuiti, religione Ebraica:
http://utenti.tripod.it/edith/italiano/It_Stein_Gar1T.html
---
Uno stralcio:
"Ebrea, filosofa, carmelitana, martire, Edith Stein (1891-1942), 'che porta
nella sua intensa vita una sintesi drammatica del nostro secolo' (Giovanni Paolo
II, 1 maggio 1985), e che la Chiesa annovera fra i suoi santi (dall'11 ottobre
1998: n.d.r.) apre cammini di rapporto e di comunione in ambiti e a livelli
diversi, ma in punti nodali dell'esperienza umana, cristiana, ecclesiale,
interreligiosa"
---
che è una pagina di:
http://utenti.tripod.it/edith/
Buone feste.
Lino A.M.


Grazie Lino dei links, conoscevo Edith Stein, cosi' come Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, e ho molta stima di loro, della loro forza morale e della loro
resistenza al nazismo.
Per inciso io non sono di religione ebraica, ne' di nessun'altra religione.
saluti
B

 che č una pagina di:


 > che è una pagina di:


 non commento nemmeno
Pero` avresti potuto quotare
-- 
Ciao, 
Fabrizio

 Pero` avresti potuto quotare
cosa? era tutto molto interessante


Scusami, allora, da profano non me ne sono accorto.
-- 
Ciao, 
Fabrizio

 wrote in message efaqu9...@127.0.0.1...

LOL!
bacio

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3C0FCB73...@libero.it...


 amare il fratello ebreo. parola di buddista.
Caro fratello buddista, ottima la concisione, scarsa la lucidità esegetica:
Non più saremo fratelli per vincolo di sangue ... ma perché figli dello stesso
Padre.
Buone Feste.
Lino A.M.



Mi spiace sempre quando debbo dar l'impressione di contrastare con
fratelli credenti come nel caso attuale, anche tenendo conto dei
chiarimenti che ci siamo reciprocamente dati in un passato
recentissimo. Ma a volte il tacere non serve a chiarire o ad
approfondire i problemi, serve solo a nebulizzarvi intorno un alone di
riabilitazione e di "in fondo tutto è bene quel che finisce bene" No.
nel caso non è solo così, anche se è anche così.
La provocazione di questo discorso è chiara: "Secondo i cristiani Gesù
fu fatto crocifiggere grazie alla complicità degli ebrei. Il problema
è adesso stabilire se questo è vero o è falso.
Neme: io affermo che è vero, tenendoa però ben fermo che per ebrei si
intende non tutto l'ebraismo operante e militante al tempo di gesù,
nbensì quella parte che il sinedrio riuscì  a trascinarsi dietro
perché gridasse il suo crucifige. Quandoa si parla di popoli la
generalizzazione è sempre pericolosa. Ma qui c'era dietro un disegno
divino, di quel Dio che già aveva detto per bocca dei profeti che solo
un residuo di Israele si sarebbe salvato. Per cui quando, alla tersza
provocazione di Pilato il popolo disswe "il suo sangue ricada su di
noi esui nostri figli" non fece checonfermarequesta divisione in buoni
e cattiviin mezzo al popolo ebraico La cosa è confermata da quel che
rispose Gesù alle Pie Donne che lo seguivano: "Figlie di Gerfusalemme
non piangete per me ma piangete per voi stesse e per i vostri
figli.....(çica. 23, 28 e segg.). Per cui poco caritatevole ma giusto
era l'"oremus et pro pòerfidis judeis" oggi rinnegato dai cattolici, e
non, purtroppo, perché hanno visto la trave nel loro occhio Che poi la
chiesa cattolica sia al rimorchio della storia e venga modificando e
attenuando le sue posizioni a seconda che bisogni e convenga questoè
un altro discorso: significa a) che l'infallibilità della chiesa è una
presuntuosa bestemmia e b) che la chiesa cattolica insegna agli altri
a prendere la croce  sulle proprie spalle, e che costituisce fardelli
chepesantissimi, ma che non vuol toccare neppure con un dito, secondo
la dizione di Matteo 23.
Ma c'è anche la previsione del ritorno di Israeled al gregge di Cristo
e della riunificazione di tutte le pecore sotto un solo pastore.
Semmai è per questo che bisogna lavorare, ma per ottener risultati
bisogna rinunciare a privilegi - soprattutto nella sfera degli ummani
poteri. Altrimenti si possono fare incontri, esminari, accordi, studi
comuni quanto si vuole, ma sarò sempre opera di una parte che non sarà
seguita dall'altra, nè si stabilirà quella fraternità che deve regnare
su l'unico gregge che Cristo guida e di cui è unico pastore senza
mediatori privilegiati. Questo volevo dire senza albagia, rancori o
presunzione di saperne di piùdegli altri.Ripeto quello che ho
imparato, alla maniera dei discepoli dell'epoca di Cisto e di
Socrate:i quali erano considerati buone e fedeli solo se fedelmente
ripetevano le parole che avevano sentite dal maestro (vedi Platone).
Luigi Melilli

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3C2A604D...@libero.it...


 il 2002 sia per te un anno stupendo.
Ciao, ricambio gli auguri.
Lino A.M.