Something Bad Jesus Did

Ben Masada said:
All the quotes above in this post of yours are references to the enemies of Israel; especially those who were trying to kill David. The poor Canaanite woman was not an enemy of Jesus'.
Her people were a mixed culture which compromised Jewish with pagan culture -- the thing you don't like about Christianity. They had a copycat religion with modified laws (or interpretations), and they disputed with Jews about some big ticket items as can be seen in Jesus conversation with the 'Woman at the well'. (John 4:9,20) It appears that they wanted to be accepted as Jews as they were, so they were trying to modify Judaism, hence they were accused of opposing the Lord.

Besides in the passages above, its not David who makes the distinction of dogs but the Lord who makes it between the Israelite and the Egyptian of the time of Exodus. The enemies aren't David's enemies but the Lord's enemies, and that is the most clear in the story of Goliath where David attacks in the name of the Lord. If these are only David's enemies, then why bother praying to the Lord to defeat them? Its reasonable to think that the Lord's enemies were called dogs.

Anyway, you haven't succeeded yet to defend Jesus, when his defense is so simple. Just adopt the fact that the episode never happened. It was an embelishment of the text akin to pious forgery. That's all. And the case is closed. If you choose to believe that the case did happen, Jesus broke the Golden Rule, which requires of you to defend him further.
Ben
There is no need to defend him until you've established that he has not followed the golden rule. He only refused to do anything until she showed that she was not opposed to the Lord. Its clear that he had no problem with her lineage but only with enemies of the Lord, dogs. Therefore, the passage in question may not be a late addition.
 
Her people were a mixed culture which compromised Jewish with pagan culture -- the thing you don't like about Christianity. They had a copycat religion with modified laws (or interpretations), and they disputed with Jews about some big ticket items as can be seen in Jesus conversation with the 'Woman at the well'. (John 4:9,20) It appears that they wanted to be accepted as Jews as they were, so they were trying to modify Judaism, hence they were accused of opposing the Lord.

Besides in the passages above, its not David who makes the distinction of dogs but the Lord who makes it between the Israelite and the Egyptian of the time of Exodus. The enemies aren't David's enemies but the Lord's enemies, and that is the most clear in the story of Goliath where David attacks in the name of the Lord. If these are only David's enemies, then why bother praying to the Lord to defeat them? Its reasonable to think that the Lord's enemies were called dogs.

There is no need to defend him until you've established that he has not followed the golden rule. He only refused to do anything until she showed that she was not opposed to the Lord. Its clear that he had no problem with her lineage but only with enemies of the Lord, dogs. Therefore, the passage in question may not be a late addition.


Would Jesus have liked to be referred to as a dog? Of course not! Therefore, he broke the Golden Rule by referring to that mother as a dog. I am sure, deep inside, she did not like it. She did not protest because the cure of her daughter was more important. But I understand your frustration to have to admit imperfection in Jesus. But what can I do? If this gloss is in the NT, Christians must be able to defend themselves.
Ben
 
Ben Masada said:
Would Jesus have liked to be referred to as a dog? Of course not! Therefore, he broke the Golden Rule by referring to that mother as a dog. I am sure, deep inside, she did not like it. She did not protest because the cure of her daughter was more important. But I understand your frustration to have to admit imperfection in Jesus. But what can I do? If this gloss is in the NT, Christians must be able to defend themselves.
Ben
I've no problem with Jesus making a mistake. I just don't think he did anything offensive in the context of that situation. Shouldn't a Jewish person rebuke evil wherever they find it? He would be neglecting his responsibility to ignore it, particularly with all those syro-phoenecians standing around watching. If you ask me, the time he possibly made a mistake is in John 4:8-10 where he told everybody he was not going somewhere but then secretly went.
 
Ben Masada said:
Great! Now, go right ahead and quote in the Hebrew Scriptures where bodily resurrection is involved. If you can't, spare yourself the embarrassment.

Gee, Ben, it was right there, in the opening sentence of the little tourist brochure: “Jews have sought since antiquity to be buried on the Mount of Olives, where according to the Bible (Zech. 14:4) the resurrection will begin when the Messiah comes.”

Ben Masada said:
The dichotomy is not mine, but of the Scriptures'. And parallel to it, the Essenes were famous with their version of the endless struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness.

I know it is scriptural. That is why I recommended that you not use such language when speaking to the congregation in John Hagee’s synagogue masquerading as a church: there might be some, especially scripturally literate, in the crowd who would be reminded of the dialogue in the eighth chapter of St. John’s Gospel.

Ben Masada said:
John 8 was a forgery.

Tell them that, when you speak to them. But, if you do, be forewarned: your building fund might dry up.

Ben Masada said:
If it is too hard on you, you must admit contradiction in the NT. Read verse 31. It says in there that Jesus was speaking to the Jews who had believed in him. Then, in verse 44 he calls them children of the devil. How could Jesus call the Jews who had believed in him children of the devil? Was he drugged?

You’ll have to ask Imam John Hagee that one. I am not a theologian and I do not particularly care.

Ben Masada said:
I wonder if you would still love them if they killed your child. Put yourself in the shoes of a father who has lost his child to them.

Do you mean, like, what happened to Muhammad al-Durrah in “Operation Cast Lead?” I have put myself in the shoes of that father.

Ben Masada said:
And Reverend Hagee has no synagogue but church. He is a Christian and not a Jew.

Well he does a fine imitation, in any case, which is one reason he has been practically beatified by AIPAC.

Ben Masada said:
Read Exodus 4:22,23. Israel is referred to as "he." Nevertheless Israel is collective. "Let My People go so that HE may serve Me." Is the text talking about an individual or the collective? It means that Maimonides did not refer to an individual but the collective in Israel.

I remain unconvinced. If the Jews weren’t expecting an “individual”, why did they flock, en masse, to Palestine when they heard the clarion call of Sabbatai Zevi? He was an individual, not a collective.

Ben Masada said:
You are not too sharp in History either. Unless it is anti-Jewish History.

Let me guess: to be contra Ben Masada is to be ant-Jewish and worse, antiSemitic. At any rate, I am watching plenty of Rupert Murdoch media now, to say nothing of the so called “History Channel,” and ought, soon, to be properly educated. Once I have finished with Murdoch and his talking heads, I might agree with your history as hagiography. Please give me some time: or, to paraphrase, "Please be patient with me, Murdoch is not finished with me yet."

Serv
 
Let me guess: to be contra Ben Masada is to be ant-Jewish and worse, antiSemitic ...

Tweaking on the details here, but that should be read: to oppose Ben Masada's opinion (not his person), to disagree with him, is to be anti-Jewish and worse, anti-Semitic.

During the reign of G.W. Bush, it occurred to me, at one point, that the new definition of anti-Semitism, as it appears in the American Political Dictionary, should be: "anyone, including his wife, Midge Decter, who disagrees with Norman Podhoretz."
 
I've no problem with Jesus making a mistake. I just don't think he did anything offensive in the context of that situation. Shouldn't a Jewish person rebuke evil wherever they find it? He would be neglecting his responsibility to ignore it, particularly with all those syro-phoenecians standing around watching. If you ask me, the time he possibly made a mistake is in John 4:8-10 where he told everybody he was not going somewhere but then secretly went.


Dream, for heaven's sake! Think! It is not too hard. That desperate mother meant no evil to Jesus. Why would he have to rebuke her? You are hitting against pricks with your bare hands. Let us do something else which will clear Jesus of such a mistake or apparent break of the Golden Rule. The case did not happen in reality. It was only one of Jesus' parables. There! You are happy, I am happy and every one else is happy. Every thing is possible in a parable or allegory without having to compromise any values. How about that?
Ben
 
Gee, Ben, it was right there, in the opening sentence of the little tourist brochure: “Jews have sought since antiquity to be buried on the Mount of Olives, where according to the Bible (Zech. 14:4) the resurrection will begin when the Messiah comes.”

I can't even say, nice try! I read the text and did not find even a single hint to bodily resurrection. I confess to have gone to it a little apprehensive but just to breathe in deep relief after the false alarm of mere verbal juggling.

You’ll have to ask Imam John Hagee that one. I am not a theologian and I do not particularly care.

If you do not particularly care, what are doing here, watching the time to pass?

Do you mean, like, what happened to Muhammad al-Durrah in “Operation Cast Lead?” I have put myself in the shoes of that father.

Israelis do not kill children. These are killed by their own parents who run to hide behind them after a terrorist act against Jewish children.

Well he does a fine imitation, in any case, which is one reason he has been practically beatified by AIPAC.

Well, John Hagee can afford a few coins into the pockets of the AIPAC. After all, he uses the theme Israel to extort millions from the well-to-do American Jews.

I remain unconvinced. If the Jews weren’t expecting an “individual”, why did they flock, en masse, to Palestine when they heard the clarion call of Sabbatai Zevi? He was an individual, not a collective.

We too have our fools. Did you think we are all of the Einstein kind?

Let me guess: to be contra Ben Masada is to be ant-Jewish and worse, antiSemitic. At any rate, I am watching plenty of Rupert Murdoch media now, to say nothing of the so called “History Channel,” and ought, soon, to be properly educated. Once I have finished with Murdoch and his talking heads, I might agree with your history as hagiography. Please give me some time: or, to paraphrase, "Please be patient with me, Murdoch is not finished with me yet."

You don't need to consult anything else TV channels or Murdoch's. Just use the Scriptures and you are welcome to refute me.

Ben
 
I can't even say, nice try! I read the text and did not find even a single hint to bodily resurrection. I confess to have gone to it a little apprehensive but just to breathe in deep relief after the false alarm of mere verbal juggling.


The only verbal juggling is between you and the tourist brochure. It clearly refers to the belief among Jews in resurrection at the time of the Messiah. If you cannot read that for what it is, then so be it. I think this has been said, but those who have historically denied the soul's immortality and bodily resurrection, in your religion, are known as Sadducees.


Ben Masada said:
If you do not particularly care, what are doing here …


I am dropping white hot light upon the nations, of course, following my exemplar, Ben Masada.

Ben Masada said:
Israelis do not kill children. These are killed by their own parents who run to hide behind them after a terrorist act against Jewish children.


Does dropping white phosphorous on Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip qualify as "fighting the battles of the Lord?" Collective punishment sounds to me more like the strategy of Machiavelli on crack cocaine: when Bob attacks, annihilate Mary and her neighborhood.

Ben Masada said:
Well, John Hagee can afford a few coins into the pockets of the AIPAC. After all, he uses the theme Israel to extort millions from the well-to-do American Jews.


He does function as a temple prostitute for Israel. Even Wal-Mart sells his books. I think he is one of the head mullahs in the American branch of Hezbullah, or “Party of God.”

Ben Masada said:
We too have our fools. Did you think we are all of the Einstein kind?


Would they be any less foolish to accept you and organized crime boss Semion Yudkovich Mogilivech as part of a collective messiah, sitting upon King David's throne, simply because you are born Jews? To me, that would be Einstein in reverse.


Ben Masada said:
You don't need to consult anything else TV channels or Murdoch's. Just use the Scriptures and you are welcome to refute me.


In view of R. Johanan's injunction (involving the death penalty to gentiles prying into your scriptures), perhaps you could tell me where, in the scriptures, God is said to have given Noah "laws" which apply to me. Where are those "Noahide Laws" given in scripture?


Serv
 
Addendum:

Source:

“Theological dissent, in and of itself, did not, however, [at Spinoza’s time] call down upon the dissenter the wrath of the organized [Jewish] community. Acosta was only one among a considerable group in the Jewish community who denied the soul’s immortality. These skeptics were called “Sadduceans,” after their ancient forebears, and against their trend of thought, the community’s exponents of orthodoxy directed an unceasing stream of writings. Manasseh published his De Resurrectione Mortuorum in both Spanish and Latin versions, Samuel da Silva wrote a Tratado da Immortalitidade, and Moses Raphael de Aguilar, principal of the Talmud Torah … contributed a Tratado de Immortalidade da Alma …[p. 15]”
 
The only verbal juggling is between you and the tourist brochure. It clearly refers to the belief among Jews in resurrection at the time of the Messiah. If you cannot read that for what it is, then so be it. I think this has been said, but those who have historically denied the soul's immortality and bodily resurrection, in your religion, are known as Sadducees.

I said to use the Scriptures to refute me and not tourist brochures. There is quite a difference right there. About denying immortality and resurrection, not only the Sadducees but Jews of common sense in general, except for the fool ones among us. Who else believed in immortality and bodily resurrection?

Does dropping white phosphorous on Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip qualify as "fighting the battles of the Lord?" Collective punishment sounds to me more like the strategy of Machiavelli on crack cocaine: when Bob attacks, annihilate Mary and her neighborhood.

I have told you already, their parents would attack our cities with terroristic acts and escape to their cities in order to spread the feedback punishment to their children with the intent to change public opinion unto themselves and bring a bad name to Israel. Perhaps you would be happy if we just sit duck and let them push us into the sea. Thank you but no, thanks. We are not of the kind of the Jews of the Holocaust. We are here to defend ourselves.

Would they be any less foolish to accept you and organized crime boss Semion Yudkovich Mogilivech as part of a collective messiah, sitting upon King David's throne, simply because you are born Jews? To me, that would be Einstein in reverse.

Don't blame us. Blame the Bilbical prophets. That's what they saw in their visions. The Jewish People in the throne of David in Jerusalem. (I Kings 11:36).

In view of R. Johanan's injunction (involving the death penalty to gentiles prying into your scriptures), perhaps you could tell me where, in the scriptures, God is said to have given Noah "laws" which apply to me. Where are those "Noahide Laws" given in scripture?


Soon after the Flood, a Covenant was established with Noah, which became known as the Noahide Covenant. That was a Covenant with Mankind. The seven Noahide laws were organized naturally as common sense dictated a few thousand years later when Israel rose. And here they are:

The Seven Noahide Laws

According to traditional Judaism, G-d gave Noah and his family seven
commandments to observe when he saved them from the flood. These commandments, referred to as the Noahide commandments. They are inferred from Genesis Ch. 9, and are as follows:

1) to establish courts of justice;
2) not to commit blasphemy;
3) not to commit idolatry;
4) not to commit incest and adultery;
5) not to commit bloodshed;
6) not to commit robbery; and
7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal.

These commandments are fairly simple and straightforward, and most of them are recognized by most of the world as sound moral principles.
Any non-Jew who follows these laws has a place in the world to come.
The Noahide commandments are binding on all people, because all people are descended from Noah and his family.

The 613 mitzvot of the Torah, on the other hand, are only binding on the descendants of those who accepted the commandments at Sinai and upon those who take on the yoke of the commandments voluntarily (by
conversion).

In addition, the Noahide commandments are applied more leniently to
non-Jews than the corresponding commandments are to Jews, because non-Jews do not have the benefit of Oral Torah to guide them in interpreting the laws, although they do have the Jewish People. For example, worshipping G-d in the form of a man would constitute idolatry for a Jew; however, according to some sources, the Christian worship of Jesus does not constitute idolatry for non-Jews.

Ben
 
Ben Masada said:
Dream, for heaven's sake! Think! It is not too hard. That desperate mother meant no evil to Jesus. Why would he have to rebuke her? You are hitting against pricks with your bare hands. Let us do something else which will clear Jesus of such a mistake or apparent break of the Golden Rule. The case did not happen in reality. It was only one of Jesus' parables. There! You are happy, I am happy and every one else is happy. Every thing is possible in a parable or allegory without having to compromise any values. How about that?
Ben
I do not say that I am happy about it, but that is ok with me. For all I know it may have been a parable. Owe! My poor hands! What good is it if a man gains the whole world but grinds his hands to pulp in the process?
 
Hi Ben,

Ben Masada said:
… So much so because Jews do not believe in bodily resurrection.
Servetus said:
… a question arises: if (all) Jews do not believe in bodily resurrection, why have so many of those who could afford it, over the years, purchased burial plots on the Mount of Olives?
Ben Masada said:
I said to use the Scriptures to refute me and not tourist brochures. There is quite a difference right there.

Apparently, you missed the bit where the tourist brochure provides the scripture which gave the Jews buried on the Mount of Olives the strange, inexplicable, indefensible, absurd, fantastical, fabulous and ridiculous notion that they would be resurrected at the time of their messiah. If they are not going to be resurrected, perhaps you, as a sort of messiah in residence, should dig them up and tell them that their hopes are, after all, in vain.

Ben Masada said:
About denying immortality and resurrection, not only the Sadducees but Jews of common sense in general, except for the fool ones among us ...

You heap both scorn and ridicule upon your orthodox coreligionists and those buried on the Mount of Olives.

Ben Masada said:
I have told you already, their parents would attack our cities with terroristic acts and escape to their cities in order to spread the feedback punishment to their children with the intent to change public opinion unto themselves and bring a bad name to Israel. Perhaps you would be happy if we just sit duck and let them push us into the sea.

That, I must say, was a refreshingly trite analysis and one worthy of Sky and Fox News. Uri Avnery, a wee small dissenting voice, offers an antidote to those terrorists –and their institutional enablers- who operate with relative impunity from these Unites States, Kach-Kahane. According to Mr. Avnery:

"… It [Kasher’s argument] states, in effect, that it is permissible to kill enemy civilians without restraint in order to avoid casualties among our [Israeli] soldiers. (In retrospect, we should be glad that the British soldiers who fought the Irgun and the Lehi did not conduct themselves in a similar manner.)

Tragically, it appears that the IDF operated in accordance with this principle during the Gaza war, and to the best of my knowledge, this was the first time it did so. In order to prevent the death of a single one of our soldiers, it was considered permissible to kill ten, a hundred, or even a thousand enemy civilians. The goal was a war with zero casualties for our side, and the statistics reflect this: There were approximately 1,400 casualties in Gaza, one- or two-thirds of which (depending on whom you ask) were civilians, women, and children. In comparison, six IDF soldiers were killed by enemy action (four more died in friendly fire incidents) ..."

Servetus said:
Would they [the Jews who emigrated to Palestine at the time of Sabatai Zevi] be any less foolish to accept you and organized crime boss Semion Yudkovich Mogilivech as part of a collective messiah, sitting upon King David's throne, simply because you are born Jews? To me, that would be Einstein in reverse.
Ben Masada said:
Don't blame us. Blame the Bilbical prophets. That's what they saw in their visions. The Jewish People in the throne of David in Jerusalem. (I Kings 11:36).

There is no blame on my part. I am starting to catch the vision. Funnily enough, especially in light of the Machiavellian military strategies Israel is pursuing in its jihad against the Palestinians and others, I am starting to see the distinct, prophetical possibility that Semion Yudkovich Mogilivech and others like him will be crowned collective King of Israel. "Wither is fled the visionary gleam, where is it now, the glory and the dream?"

Servetus said:
In view of R. Johanan's injunction (involving the death penalty to gentiles prying into your scriptures), perhaps you could tell me where, in the scriptures, God is said to have given Noah "laws" which apply to me. Where are those "Noahide Laws" given in scripture?
Ben Masada said:
Soon after the Flood, a Covenant was established with Noah, which became known as the Noahide Covenant. That was a Covenant with Mankind. The seven Noahide laws were organized naturally as common sense dictated a few thousand years later when Israel rose ...

I notice that you provided one scripture less than that given in the tourist brochure. Again, where, in the scriptures, is God said to have given Noah “laws” which apply to me. Where are those “Noahide Laws” given in scripture? If I am going to be tried by them, I want to read them: chapter and verse.

Ben Masada said:
…. According to traditional Judaism, G-d gave Noah …

Now, all of a sudden, you are a “traditionalist?” You have gone from being a sort of crypto-Karaite (in your discussions with bananabrain) to a traditional Talmudist in six short posts. Ben, thy name is Mercury.

Serv
 
I just want to address this concern... How dare you say that Jesus Christ did something bad? As I can see your wisdom of the Bible is not enough... Jesus Christ did not sinned... So how dare you say that he did something bad? Isn't that contradicting to what God said? Isn't that illogical? What I can advice is to focus on your salvation other than seeking evil or corruption in the book...
 
Jer316 said:
I just want to address this concern... How dare you say that Jesus Christ did something bad? As I can see your wisdom of the Bible is not enough... Jesus Christ did not sinned... So how dare you say that he did something bad? Isn't that contradicting to what God said? Isn't that illogical? What I can advice is to focus on your salvation other than seeking evil or corruption in the book...
Hi Jeremy. In a sense you are right, but in another sense you are wrong. Although it may sound like we are debating whether Jesus did something wrong, actually this is about whether certain actions are wrong and why or why not. Jesus would count that to be more important than whether he was personally accused of something, because he always put his principles before his reputation, preferring to allow God to justify him instead of trying to do so through argument. If it were not so he wouldn't have gone on the cross would he? If Ben says Jesus did something wrong, then just let it go. Can't Jesus defend himself?

Also this conversation is about whether scriptures were added to the books at a late date and about the whole nature of faith and of believing. People tend to wonder about these things, so don't get mad about it. You sound like you've read the Bible at least once, but don't make the assumption that we don't care what it says. You probably don't care about it as much as Ben does. You can question my sincerity, but don't question the power of the Bible in someone who studies it daily. There is no question about the effects of that. You cannot take the position that the Bible is holy and at the same time deny its power to affect a reader. I think you have let yourself get angry and are not thinking about what is really being discussed. That is ok though. I'm not saying you aren't welcome to the talk. The more the merrier.
 
Corrigendum:
(in which Servie, publicly losing control of his OCD, shamelessly tweaks on the details)

Uri Avnery, a wee small dissenting voice, offers an antidote to those terrorists –and their institutional enablers- who operate with relative impunity from these Unites States, Kach-Kahane.

Aargh! That should be United States, of course.

Servetus said:
"Wither is fled the visionary gleam, where is it now, the glory and the dream?"

That should be whither - whither is fled. If I am going to quote the good Wordsworth, I should spell him correctly and not rely upon my spell checker to do all things for me.

___________________________________

Hi Dream,

Dream said:
I use software, and lately I've been using bible.cc . Naturally its difficult for me to prove that the usage of dog extended into Jesus time, however I can create a reasonable doubt about whether what he said was bad by showing its usage in the Tanach. If Matthew and/or Jesus read any of the following passages, then they could have gotten the term from there. A 'Dog' seems it was something not defeated militarily but was somehow involved in evil and in spreading evil. In the passage you brought up where Jesus tells some Jewish people not to give pearls to swine or dogs, he has made a reasonable point. In what way has he said something wrong?


  • Psalm 22:16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. (Prayer that the Lord will defeat the dogs.)
  • 1 Samuel 17:43 He said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. (I will add that here Goliath is speaking rhetorically. He is a dog and is defeated by righteousness, not because of Israel's military prowess.)
  • Exodus 11:7 But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal.' Then you will know that the LORD makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel. (At the time Egypt is trying to kill Israel, hence it is a dog. Again it was not defeated militarily.)
  • Psalm 59:6 O Lord God Almighty, the God of Israel, rouse yourself to punish all the nations; show no mercy to wicked traitors. Selah They return at evening, snarling like dogs, and prowl about the city. (The psalmist prays to the Lord will defeat the dogs.)

Please stop posting such intelligent responses in and to this thread. They are, at times, as unnerving as they are distracting: :D.

Best regards,

Serv
 
Serv, thanks! I highly regard your complement, and I return it both to you and to Ben. (Love your concept of 'Philadelphian' christianity.) Arguing is a lot of fun, izn't it?
 
Surely Servetus, aren't you being a bit too meticulous and pedantic?

Yes, undoubtedly, to both charges. The bad news is that my (mild-case of) OCD is evidently out of control; the good news is that I tend to pedantically tweak only upon my own posts.

By the way, spot on to the Illuminati stuff, if I may say so. I hope, at some point, to be able to discuss the subject with you in more detail, but that is one reason why, though the logic of the primacy of the Jerusalem Church and of the corresponding patriarchate of James the Just is appealing to me, I am nevertheless cautious when accepting the findings of such scholars as, e.g., Robert Eisenman in toto. It is not that I consider him an Illuminatus, by any means, but rather that I suspect that it will be by means of some supposed resurrection of the long-lost Jerusalem Church and, significantly, of the desposyni (and blood-line of Jesus) that the Illuminoids might (try to) enthrone someone from, say, the (Merovingian) House of Plantagenet and declare him the messiah, son of David, son of Jesus, and rightful heir. This stuff is in the making and has been long before Dan Brown's mysteries. For instance, as I recall, H.P. Blavatsky, in one of her works, traced the alleged conflict, correction, feud between James and Paul through the Clementine Homilies and elsewhere. Whatever else might be said of her, I think it safe to say that she was a spokeswoman for an occult tradition, or traditions, plural, and it is worthwhile to note that Eisenman and others are just now pursuing the line of thought in their more academically credible studies.

Anyway, it's a long subject, but I thought I'd address it.

Best regards,

Serv
 
Back
Top