You understand that "yoke" is the most direct translation of "yoga" in the English language? Nothing about Christianity is aimed at the intellectual though, this simply isn't its focus, it is a faith founded on devotion and service - bhakti and karma yoga respectively.
A yoke is an instrument used in farming, to tie the necks of a pair of oxen. It symbolises slavery, captivity and bondage.
The prophet Jeremiah used the idea of a yoke to tell people what would happen to them when the king of Babylon defeated Judah and deported people to Babylon. If they co-operated, things would be easier for them.
When Jesus spoke of a yoke, he was talking about a master and servant/student relationship. A student is supposed to do everything his teacher says as part of his learning. As long as they are a student, they must be compliant. It was as if the student was "bonded" to their teacher. Again, the yoke symbolises bondage and captivity. Jesus is claiming that he treats his students better than the other teachers.
I don't know what your background is, but I get the impression that you are much more influenced by Eastern traditions than the Abrahamic ones. It is more likely that Jesus was using a concept that referred to farming practices employed by the people of Israel than something that came from Eastern traditions. The English word looking like "yoga" is irrelevant.
Greek influences would have been stronger than Eastern influences. Second-Temple Jews did use Greek for communication purposes, but it was only for convenience. They didn't actually understand Greek. If they couldn't understand the Greek language despite Greek influences being the most dominant of the foreign influences among the Jewish people, it is very unlikely they knew anything about Hinduism or Buddhism.
The Gospels contain plenty of Hebraisms and whatever the Greek says is probably a direct translation of Hebrew. The Gospel of Matthew which I quoted would have been more Jewish in contrast to the Gospel of John which is often called "the Gentile Gospel." Having said that, it would have had far less foreign influences associated with it.
I agree, my statements do not include modern Christianity, but they do encompass many statements in the Bible. I merely look at them from a more universal perspective, and thus I see a supremely mystical statement in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 where most Christians seem to see... uhh, I'm not entirely sure. I also see 1 John 4:8 as quite mystical, amongst many other statements. There are Catholic mystic schools which understand these things, but Christianity as a whole pays them little mind it seems, or at least fails to grasp them fully.
I think what you call "mysticism" is really Greek philosophical constructs. If mysticism is about secret knowledge, then the NT doesn't really contain secrets. I am not saying it's all straightforward. Most Christians are unaware of the Greek influences in the NT. It's one of the best kept secrets of Christianity, but it isn't mysticism. It's history. There's nothing special about it, because if you knew enough about Greek philosophy, you would be able to make sense of it.
Mysticism is spiritual, but philosophy is not. Mysticism is the search for something greater than the human experience. Philosophy does not seek to find something beyond the human experience. The human experience is as far as philosophy will go. Because a lot of the concepts you find in the NT are Greek philosophical constructs, you should assume that Christianity is more about the human experience than something mystical.
The Greeks were more philosophical than mystical and because Christianity spread in a Greek and Roman world, Christianity did not become mystical. That's why most of the conflicts within Christianity have been about semantics.
I would have to agree if you told me that a lot of internal Christian conflicts are pretty ridiculous and banal because they have little to do with your earthly experience. It has little to do with making your life better or even seeking something beyond the human experience (mysticism). It's all semantics. Christian attitudes toward non-Christian ideas often aren't much better.
I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of mysticism and it's not because mysticism can't be good, but because the Greek philosophical influences in the NT have driven Christians over the centuries down the wrong path. I dislike the idea that we should embrace these constructs any more than we have already done in the last 2,000 years. Actually I think we should avoid these Greek philosophical constructs altogether, separate the Judaic/Hebraic from the Greek and completely embrace the Judaic/Hebraic. Because the constructs fill much of the NT, we must develop a hermeneutic to re-interpret the NT to avoid them.
Because of the atrocities by Christians in the last 2,000 years, the "Greek" in the NT has become an abomination. I think we should be forbidden to allow ourselves to be indoctrinated by it any longer. That is how serious the situation has become. Just like Tertullian said, what does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? Christian persecution of Jews and Muslims was an expression of Greek arrogance. Pretty much every expression of Christian supremacism is an expression of Greek arrogance.
But to continue with my contrast between mystical and philosophical........
Paul wrote to a Greek audience using more or less than very own ideas. Paul told them to turn away from their "paganism" and replace it with Christ. Is that mysticism or philosophy? I think it's more likely to be philosophy. The fact that Paul needed to show that Christ was the correct path means he was being philosophical, not mystical. In philosophy you seek the right answers. Mysticism, I have to assume isn't about right answers but like I said before it is about going beyond the human experience. Because the world beyond human experience may be too big to explore fully, you may never have the right answers. In fact, you go in knowing there are no right answers.
But according to Paul, the answer is right before them. It is Christ. There is no need to keep searching.
The NT does not contain hermeneutic rules for its own interpretation so it is completely up to you if you want to take the mystical interpretation. My point is simply for you not to assume it's mystical just because you're used to mysticism. Don't assume that there is more to it than there actually is.
That said, I am quite against any organized religion, a common thread in my posts is that of rejecting group-think.
I am against fundamentalism, but not organised religion. I oppose the established ideology whenever it contradicts my own. I'm not against group-think. I used to be. I used to be an anarchist. I used to abhor the idea of people conforming, as a group to the same idea. Group conformity gave people power, power that could be used to dominate, persecute and oppress. The group devalued anyone who did not conform.
I now believe that there is a time and place for everything. There should be a balance between individualism and collectivism. Some groups must be allowed to prevail because of their merits and virtues. That is why we have governments.
If I like your ideas I will vote and vouch for you. If I don't, I will argue and bicker. If I don't care, I won't say anything and will just mind my own business. Now you know my policies.
Christ has merely shared his own experience and understanding, you must find your own. I think this is where it can be useful to venture into other texts, for you can gain a better understanding
I don't think Jesus merely came to share his own experience. I think he has a critical role to play in the drama of the human race. Reading and gaining knowledge helps me to think of ideas on how this drama will play out. Jesus' legacy is greater than his teachings. They have social, political and economic implications.
when you see that all point to the same thing, you see what is actually conveyed rather than relying on a group to tell you how to understand it.
I don't believe they all point to the same thing. All the world's books are like organs in the human body, they are like components of an organic system. None of these components is self-sufficient or does all the work. Each has its own place, its own function. Many of them mention God, but they also mention other things. It's not all about God. It's not all about one thing. It's not all about anything. It's more of a question of what you think it's about and that's completely up to you. To become focused on one thing is narrow-mindedness.
to truly have successful discussion here we must not focus on a particular tradition.
I've been focusing mainly on the Abrahamic faiths and the reason is because I haven't seen everything yet. I think of new questions to answer almost every month.
To do this, sometimes it is appropriate to almost attack such a tradition, merely to show some absurdities within it and permit a disconnect that enables useful discussion. Of course, this can backfire in some cases because the other party becomes defensive, I only know what I say is what must be said and will be utilized as appropriate.
That's the nature of politics, but keep in mind that it is up to the adherents of any tradition to decide what they want to do with their tradition. It's actually more appropriate if it is
your tradition. If it is not your tradition, it may actually be disrespectful. Respectful politics usually only applies within the group. For an outside party to barge in, it would be like a foreign invading force.
