Historicity of Jesus - 2

[dhu]

Sumishi,

Basically we have to conceive 2 different instances for monotheism:



1. when the heathen needs to be tamed (or normed) - this is the OT portion of monotheism, and this is primarily a revisionist stage.

Because it is just a revisionist stage and also a stage where the monotheist categories are first generated, often this stage appears to be non-proselytizing or even defunct or retired from proselytizing; such a conception completely misses the “point” of this stage.



2. when the monotheist framework expands into new territory – this is the NT portion of monotheism, and this is primarily an “active” stage.

In this stage, the heathen may or may not be a target; in societies which have been fully monotheized and no residue of heathenism exists, all factions are operative at this level only and they will of course spar among themselves exclusively and without any issues (e.g., shia vs. sunni, liberal vs conservative).



_______________________________________________________________________



1. To problematize monotheism into existence, the basic ‘raw material’ that is the heathen reality must be used initially: Reality gets normed against an ideal oppositely posed; thus, the basic unit of the OT stage is an aspect of reality and its idealized opposite (e.g., the idol-worshipper and the idol-breaker). However, the 2 basic units here (reality versus the ideal) are dependent upon each other, and so the ‘ideal’ categories are not able to be composed in a (self-sustaining and obvious) ‘system’; for this a 3rd category is required which can ‘reconcile’ the 2 units: this is the monotheist Deity, which is Independent and can simply “will” congruence between ‘reality’ and ‘ideal’ instantaneously.

Of course, the monotheist Deity still remains a tertiary level problematization and so, to compensate, all sorts of ruses become necessary: foremost, the reconciliation must be ‘founded’ at the beginning of Time with the (quasi-)dynamic of the 2 basic units used to actuate the periodic revelation of the Reconciliation in time (e.g., revelatory history) as well as to “interpret” all Reality itself (i.e., interpretative history).

It is in this space that the Jewish OT Deity is founded; the Jew himself is concerned with revising the time dynamic as the history of the Revelation of this Reconciliation. The (Jewish) Reconciliatory History is simultaneously conquering (Joshua) and self-taming/self-punishing (Moses), but the Reconciliation is mostly concerned with norming the past.

Again, of note, is that the all-actuating Deity is generated in response to (and is a reconciliation of) 2 more basic units, one of which is the Heathen Reality itself (deemed deficient) and the other is its mirror i.e., the City of God (deemed ideal); thus the Reconciliation is secondary to the City of God, which itself has been problematized from the heathen Reality.

(This OT Trinity is a re-conciliatory dialectic; however, this Trinity is always muted (never manifested) because of the inclusion of the heathen reality as a formative aspect [this is in superficial contrast to the heathen Triguna where Sattva is not a reconciliation of the “problems” of Tamas or Rajas])



2. Once the above frameworks have been formulated, in order to propagate monotheism, a purposive explanation must be postulated that “explains” Reality (explanatory history) or is otherwise liberating, salvational, essential, utilitarian, i.e., that has “meaning” and “purpose”; the interpretation-level baselining of Reality basically demands a explanational “purpose” into the future. This is the NT level stage, in which the Reconciliation is itself taken as the normative ‘ideal’ and it is the Sepoy Reality (the Jew’s Reality) which gets normed as deficient (instead of the heathen Reality) (i.e., the monotheized Jew himself is the villain of the NT and is damned). The (new) Reconciliation thus engendered is a purposive Reconciliation that purportedly ‘saves’ and ‘liberates’ i.e., Jesus. In this instance, however, the reconciliation is sensitive to counter-accusation (?) from the Jew and therefore a mask must be donned; the Savior is masked as the true native voice (of aspiration) and in his affected suffering displaces that of the colonized (heathen) native itself.

(This NT Trinity can yes manifest, because the heathen has been summarily excluded in this NT round)



Mapping the above two instances onto current categories in Desh, we get the following:

* British Macaulay = colonizer

1. Native Macaulayite = Jewish = colonized, concerned primarily with negating the

past, negating the heathen dynamic and Reality

2. Communist = Jesus = masked colonizer and masked colonized, concerned primarily

with expansion by damning the macaulayite/Empire and presuming to assume the

native voice

___________________________________________________________



3. Eventually, even this NT Trinity is deemed problematic for the overall coherence of the “System”: either the 2nd reconciliation is demoted (Arianism), or the 1st reconciliation is promoted (Islam).