Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/winterac/public_html/newnationalist.net/wp-content/plugins/sassy-social-share-premium/public/class-sassy-social-share-premium-public.php on line 281

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/winterac/public_html/newnationalist.net/wp-content/plugins/sassy-social-share-premium/public/class-sassy-social-share-premium-public.php on line 286
News Ticker

Sigmund Fraud: The Father of Modern Psychoanalysis and Neurotic Charlatan

IMAGE: TheImaginativeConservative.org

The progenitor of much of the modern thinking about the mental condition was put forth by a neurotic, strange, feminine Jewish man of the lowest order, Sigmund Schlomo Freud (1856-1939). What follows is, in part, a condensation of a treatment of this charlatan from David McCalden’s treatise “Exiles From History.”

From an early age, Freud’s personal neurotic dysfunctions manifested themselves in unusual behavior patterns and in psychosomatic ailments — particularly those affecting the mouth, the genitals and the anus. At the age of 7, problem child Siggie walked into his parents’ bedroom and deliberately urinated on the floor. He fainted often. He suffered lifelong indigestion, often with constipation in an irritable spastic colon. He suffered severe phobias about riding in trains, about death and about visiting Rome. More often than not, he was chronically depressed and bad-tempered.

His fear of death obsessed him, and he would spend much of his time trying to figure out when he would die by using a friend’s numerology theories. He often recounted the death of his younger brother, Julius, who had died in childhood. He was unable to separate his emotions.

Freud enrolled at the University of Vienna in 1873, where it took him three years longer than normal to complete his medical studies. His doctoral dissertation, “On the Spinal Cord of Lower Fishes,” focused on studies of the testicles of eels.

Freud did not take to the medical profession out of a passion to help other people. At 70 years of age, Freud wrote retrospectively on his youth and later years of professional life:

“I did not feel any particular preference for the position and activity of the physician in these youthful years, but not later. Rather, I was moved by a kind of curiosity, which concerned itself more with human conditions than with natural objects.”

The psychoanalyst Sandor Ferenczi reports a statement by Freud from 1932 that referred to patients as “rabble” and “only good for money-earning and studying.”

From 1884 onward, Freud was in effect a snake-oil salesman. He then began experimenting with cocaine, using it on himself and on his fiancée, Martha Bernays (1861-1951). He called cocaine his “magic carpet” and eventually thrust it on all, including his sisters, friends, patients, colleagues — everyone.

He told his fiancée it made him a “big wild man” and it would “make her strong and give her cheeks a red color.” Martin L. Gross, author of “The Psychological Society,” writes, “No one has yet evaluated the hallucinatory effects of cocaine on Freud’s mind during the formative years of psychoanalysis.”

Freud’s friend Ernst von Fleischl-Marxov (1846-1891) had become a despairing addict after Freud had prescribed cocaine as medicine for a painful hand tumor. There is no doubt that the addiction brought about this early death.

Michel Onfray, an author who wrote a comprehensive and critical monograph on Freud in 2010, documented deaths from his gross misdiagnosis (for example, a 14-year-old with a tumor as having hysteria) and quack treatments.

Freud went to Paris, to study under the French neurologist Jean Martin Charcot. Charcot was interested in the study of hysteria, which at that time was thought to be an affliction caused by an irritation of the womb (hence its name). Charcot believed that hypnotism was the answer to such personality dysfunctions.

A modern commentator on Freud’s work, Henry F. Ellenberger, recently showed in “The Discovery of the Unconscious” that many of Freud’s “original” ideas, such as hypnosis, were in fact lifted and plagiarized from Charcot and other colleagues.

Another of Freud’s plagiarized ideas was that of his colleague Josef Brewer (1842-1925). Brewer believed that the answer to female hysteria was catharsis: The patient would be healed by talking to her calmly and helping her “talk through” her hallucinations and fears. Freud and Brewer collaborated on a book, “Studies in Hysteria” published in 1895, which described treatment in detail.

One of the most important cases described in the book was that of “Anna O,” who later turned out to be Bertha Pappenheim. She went on to become a prominent social worker and proponent of women’s liberation in Austria. Pappenheim suffered from sexual hallucinations, and it may well be that it was this particular case that led Freud to develop his next theory — an only semi-original one: Psychotherapy.

Psychotherapy was a potpourri of techniques lifted from previous colleagues, laced with a heavy dose of sexual fixations, most of them exclusively Jewish in nature.

Originally, Freud would have his patients lie down on a couch and ask them leading questions in order to discover the root cause of their anxieties. Later, he would allow them to offer their “free flow” of ideas without interruption from him. Soon using a charade of the scientific method, Freud began to surmise that most of his patients’ problems were sexual in nature.

Freud also pursued a quack notion — put forth by his homosexual lover, Dr. Wilhelm Fliess, an eye and nose doctor — that sexual dysfunctions were caused by “disturbances in the mucous membranes of the nose.” Freud twice allowed Fliess to operate on his nose for “nasal infections” as an experiment.

Freud continued to be plagued by bad health, which included migraines, nightmares, heart trouble and eventually mouth cancer. Toward the end of his life, he suffered a severe operation of the jaw, resulting in his upper palate being artificially replaced.

Then Freud turned to the interpretation of his personal dreams. Throughout his career, he had a Freudian tendency to focus on himself and his own bizarre thoughts. He would then project condition onto others.

One dream he claimed to have experienced was where two bird men laid his mother on the bed. He theorized that this represented his boyhood desire to kill his father and have sex with his mother. Freud then insisted that such dream symbolism was “typical” in the broader population and labelled the phenomenon the Oedipus Complex after a famous Greek fable.

Eventually, Freud patched together his crackpot dream analysis into a full-fledged theory, which was published as “The Interpretation of Dreams.” His theory held that dreams are always “wishful thinking” — even though the “wishes” might be subconscious and might manifest themselves in the dream in quite different symbolic form. Most “wishful thinking,” he argued, was sexual in nature. Freud puts forth that people are inherently bisexual.

From the get go, Freud began to develop the almost inevitable Jewish characteristic of a fear of “anti-Semitism.” He adopted as his boyhood heroes Hannibal (who he imagined to be a Semitic hero, who fought against the era’s traditional “anti-Semites,” the Romans) and Oliver Cromwell (whom he identified with the emancipation movement).

Freud alluded to a dysfunction from which he himself suffered: a phenomenon he called his “Rome neurosis”. It seems that for many years Freud had been unable to visit Rome, even though he had been to Italy many times. In his book, he described how he often dreamed of conquering Rome, just like his hero Hannibal had tried to do. He offered the following explanation:

“To my youthful mind, Hannibal and Rome symbolized the conflict between the tenacity of Jewry and the organization of the Catholic church … Thus the wish to go to Rome had become in my dream life a cloak and symbol for a number of other passionate wishes. Their realization was to be pursued with all the perseverance and single mindedness of the Carthaginian.”

In his startlingly candid article “Group Fantasies and Jewish Radicalism” published in the Fall 1978 issue of The Journal of Psychohistory, Stanley Rothman suggests:

“There is little question but that a good deal of the impetus for the discovery of psychoanalysis came from Freud’s general hostility toward Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism.”

Freud next turned his crackpot theories to human sexuality with the 1905 publication of “Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality.” He argued that humans go through different stages of sexual development. First, the oral stage in which infants derive pleasure from suckling at their mother’s breast. Next comes the anal stage, where pleasure focuses on bowel movements. Third is the phallic stage, when the erogenous zone switches to the genitals. At the age of 5 or 6, children enter into the age of their Oedipus complex, when they lust for their mother and seek to destroy their father, their love rival.

Freud’s first “diagnosis” of this complex was with a 5-year-old boy in 1909. He felt that the boy was afraid of horses (penis symbols) because he really feared his father. He feared the horses would bite off his own little penis (fear of castration by his father).

Freud obviously experienced Oedipal lust, a disturbance that non-Freudians, such as child psychiatrist Dr. Stellar Chess of New York University, believe affects only a small number of children. He then suffered the delusion that his abnormality was normal and universal.

In his next book, “Totem and Taboo (1913),” the delusional Freud argued that sexual customs were based in primitive society’s behavior patterns and not on biological instinct. Where the primitive patterns came from, he didn’t say.

His therapy practice developed over these years, and he gradually evolved different rules of approach. He determined that neurosis could only be cured by encouraging its transference into something more immediate. The treatment of the “second” neurosis would automatically bring about the cure of the underlying neuroses. The only exceptions, he said, were those neuroses that were narcissistic and, therefore, psychotic and untreatable. Even severe depression is narcissistic, he argued, because it is a form of hatred against others that becomes misdirected against oneself on account of the social taboo on open displays of hatred against “loved ones.”

Eventually, Freud concluded that “the aim of all life is death” — a death cult aim to arrive at a condition that is totally devoid of all tensions, stresses and strains.

When the National Socialist regime took over in Germany (1933) and in Austria (1938), Freud received his comeuppance. His books were declared heretical and were publicly burned. Freud was attacked by the National Socialists as the founder of Jewish hypo-criticalism, a creed that humiliates man as being an appendage to his sexual organs.

Since his death in 1939, a chorus of analysts have chimed in on Freud. Dr. Harold M. Voth, a Freudian psychiatrist at the Menninger Foundation, wrote,

“I think that Sigmund Freud had sexual conflicts within himself which he did not resolve. His belief in constitutional bisexuality, for example, was an excuse for certain personal traits.”

When Freud’s biographer, Ernest Jones, first met him in 1908, he observed, “I dimly sensed some slight feminine aspect in his manner and movements.” Modern critics suggest that present-day Freudians are influenced by Freud’s “feminine, passive feelings” so much that they “regard masculine assertiveness and aggression as a neurotic manifestation.”

The widely-published Jewish author Martin L. Gross and the aforementioned Voth wrap it all up:

“Dr. Voth is convinced that Freud displayed ‘a considerable degree of femininity’ in his personality, a trait that has colored the entire profession by making what he calls the ‘neurotically troubled’ Dr. Freud a model.

“Those driving needs have infiltrated the psyche of millions of individuals as well, remaking much of our personalities in his image. By offering his catalog of foibles as the symbols of normality, Freud achieved immortality. He has successfully projected his personality and his style of thought onto much of humanity, especially the impressionable American psyche. We have all — some wittingly, others unwittingly —become the children of Sigmund.

“Hostility was penned up inside this almost shy, somewhat feminine man, like a caged feline. His was an angry soul which hated even when it loved, a trait which he has passed down to us as ambivalence.

“He perpetually read unconscious hostility into his cases, including that of Dora, the Wolf Man and the Rat Man. He did this even over the reasonable objections of his patients, who said they felt no such hostilities.

“Although the impact of Freud’s personality has been broad, it has not generally been beneficent. The portrait that emerges is one of a man driven by the furies of hostility and envy, weighed down by depression, death wishes, phobias and severe debilitating neuroses. He was professionally distorted by his extreme surreptitiousness and gullibility — the antithesis of a man of science. Freud the man is more the unhappy philosopher than the intrepid researcher who society thought would unlock the key to our confused behavior.”

Freud told his colleague Karl Abraham that “too many of us are Jews. I don’t want Psychoanalysis to become a Jewish national affair.”

However, psychoanalysis is so much grounded in metropolitan Jewish life that Gross reports 11 central states which do not have a single psychoanalyst. One Manhattan office building houses more psychoanalysts than seven states combined. The two major analytic capitals are almost 3,000 miles apart: Manhattan and Los Angeles.” Curing a patient is commonly called bringing him to be a “mensch.”

Dr. Jerome Frank of the Johns-Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore suggests that the therapy industry may be self-perpetuating and self-serving:

“The greater the number of treatment facilities and the more widely they are known, the larger the number of persons seeking their services. Psychotherapy is the only form of treatment which, to some extent, appears to create the illness it treats.”

The Israeli philosophy professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz went even further and held that Freud psychoanalysis was “primarily a Jewish money-making scheme”  and that’s a “bad sign for (us) Jews.” He went on to say that psychoanalysis was “entirely in the hands of the Jews” and has “brought unspeakable suffering to millions of people.”

As a footnote, in our research into this skulduggery, and in all fairness, we’ve found that — at least at one time — some of the more reasoned voices countering Freud were in fact Jewish. We also note that their dissenting voices are just as suppressed and hidden from view by the heavy-handed gatekeepers.

Jeffrey Masson (Jewish) was Projects Director of the Freud Archives, with full access to Freud’s correspondence and other unpublished papers. He made finds that turned him against Freud. Masson said that Freud covered up child abuse as an issue. Masson claimed that Freud lacked the guts to confront the reality (and ubiquity) of sexual abuse. He was kicked out of psychoanalytic societies for his views.

The “work” of Sigmund Freud was spun into more twisted-mind offshoots and side alleyways. It influenced the Frankfurt School and neo-Freudians that was personified by Herbert Marcuse, who repackaged the crackpottery into a stream-of-consciousness book entitled “Eros and Civilization.” Marcuse argued that the old roster of Protestant-capitalist ethical vines — productivity, achievement, responsibility, respect for one’s fellow men, masculinity, inner strength and integrity — were conformist and, therefore, repressive under the inverted Freudian model.

21 Comments on Sigmund Fraud: The Father of Modern Psychoanalysis and Neurotic Charlatan

  1. I always found Freud’s views to be disturbing and unsettling. This is not how humans are wired! The cures for our negative thinking and actions are found in the bible and words of our Heavenly Father Jesus Christ. His words literally tell us how to handle any circumstance and behaviors. Trying to solve this in any other way will bring sub par results. They have intertwined Freud’s studies into the study of human emotions so tightly that it is unavoidable in this field. Letting people believe these theories is a sin against God and his perfect creation.

    • Well said. I would give zero credence to anyone who puts Freud and Jesus Christ in the same bracket. They don’t know what they are talking about.

      Jesus Christ is the insurmountable stumbling block for the Jews, but for Europe, he was the impregnable fortress that united Europe and protected her against Jewish chicanery, sedition, immorality and insurrection for more than 1000 years until Freud’s hero, the traitor, revolutionary, and Jewish debt-slave, Oliver Cromwell, allowed the Jews back into England. It has been disaster ever since. [All of Europe, and most of the world, is now a Jewish debt-slave.]

      Which is why the Jewish “holy” book the Talmud says that Jesus Christ is in hell, covered in boiling excrement and semen. THAT is what they think of him.

      The Jewish religion is pure filth, and has NO connection to Christianity. Anyone who says otherwise (including uninformed idiots who call themselves “Christians”) is ignorant of history and has never bothered to read the Talmud.

      • Freud was indeed a moron, but all religion is crap. Under various disguises, but still crap. Shekel, dear, if u think Xtianity “rules”, it means u never read the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Or u did and ure just another brainwashed sheeple.

        • romanianalien- you said “all religion is crap”…
          Usually if one speaks in absolute terms, they’re wrong. Many organisms, down to insect level at least, naturally arrange themselves into hierarchies. This shows that organisms naturally aspire to a higher ideal, i.e. worker bees serve the queen, and humans do the same thing. That function is “built” into us. So then the question becomes what higher ideal would be best to follow? Well if one follows their own self interests as their highest ideal, it doesn’t work out well most of the time. Psychopaths love doing that, and it fucks up the whole world, if you’ve been paying attention. If one follows their tribal identity as their highest ideal, it’s not much better. Arranging into tribal identities leaves mankind organizing itself at a level barely higher than the animal kingdom, basically the native tribal level. With man’s significant cognitive ability, one could think man could do better. Actually we know man can do better, because we have. Which brings the religious ideals into focus. But you have to unpack those individually, and they’re not all the same- some religions are in actuality self worship systems, some tribal worship systems, others still polytheistic/ lower demigod level worship, and one is the true higher power worship, in my opinion. That’s my opinion because I believe in The Almighty, I’m not a polytheist, and I understand the pitfalls of self and tribal worship. So all religions are not created equal. One can even intuit the efficacy of a religion by the success and advancement of the cultures that they create. Another way one can evaluate a religion is by asking oneself “does this religion contain universal truths that I know to be true? Conversely, does it contain obvious deception?”
          Cheers
          P.S.- Don’t insult people if possible, attacking someone else’s person is a tactic used by people with weak arguments.

          • Hi Sparrow,
            When you say, “The Almighty”, who or what do you mean?
            THE RELIGION OF MOST AMERICANS – CHRISTIANITY – IS A BRANCH OF JUDAISM
            It must be seen and rejected as Jewish mind control at its most basic. It exists to confuse and disarm Gentiles and in its extreme forms to protect Jews. If it weren’t for Christianity and its passive, surrender-based nature, the Jews would not be around today to cause us so much trouble and expense and international bloodshed. The teachings of Jesus, whom the Jews pretend to hate, have kept the Jews alive and well.

            MOSES WAS A PSYCHOPATHIC WAR CRIMINAL
            “And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses”
            (Deuteronomy 34:10)
            Yahweh, a being of simple and bloody tastes

            “One night while Moses was in camp, Jehovah was about to kill him.
            But Zipporah [his wife] circumcised her son with a flint knife … So Yahweh did not harm Moses.
            Zipporah said, ‘You are a bridegroom of blood’.”
            – Exodus 4.24-26.

            NUMBERS 31:13-18:
            (13) Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp.
            (14) But Moses was furious with all the generals and captains who had returned from the battle.
            (15) “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.
            (16) “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the Lord at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the Lord’s people.
            (17) So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man.
            ( 18 ) Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

            JESUS ENDORSED MOSES:
            “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, in whom you have put your hope. 46 If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”…
            John 5:45 47

            JESUS ENDORSED THE TORAH
            For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
            Matthew 5:18

            WHAT NO CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDS IS THAT THE BASIS OF THEIR RELIGION IS A MENTAL ILLNESS CALLED JUDAISM
            CHRISTIAN BELIEFS ARE NOT SANE BECAUSE THEIR BASIS IS ROOTED IN JUDAIC EVIL

            Judaism is morally bankrupt; it has nothing to offer us but out-dated plagiarized myths, about some angry judgmental god that is remarkably exactly like the Jews themselves. The anthropocentric supremacist myths of the Jews should have little appeal to a person of high consciousness; such exclusionistic ideas are an anathema to any decent human being. The idea that you need salvation from a Jew should go against ever cell in your being, if not you need to examine what great fault lies within yourself.

          • JESUS A PROPHET LIKE MOSES

            We often hear people say,

            “If only Jews would return to the Law of Moses!
            “Instead, they follow their secular, atheistic, and Zionist ways!”

            NUMBERS 31:13-18:
            (13) Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp.
            (14) But Moses was furious with all the generals and captains who had returned from the battle.
            (15) “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.
            (16) “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the Lord at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the Lord’s people.
            (17) So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man.
            ( 18 ) Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

            The rest of Chapter 31 is concerned with distributing the Midianite plunder. Thirty-two thousand (32,000) virgin girls were counted in the booty (Verse 35). Thirty-two of these were given to “the Lord.” That is, 32 of these little girls were set aside for the Levities (heave offerings), to be used as concubines (Verses 40 and 41).

            Yes, Numbers 31 says what it says.
            The Babylonian Talmud sages used Numbers 31 to justify having sex with children. And since the Talmud sages, along with Christians, regard the Old Testament as “the word of God,” why beat up on the Talmud sages? Why not beat up on Jehovah and Moses, who set the standards?

            For further discussion of Jewish teachings on sex with children, see the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 60b, Soncino 1961 Edition, page 402. Discussion and links at
            http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_2.html

            TORAH JESUS ENDORSES TORAH
            For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
            Matthew 5:18

            JESUS ENDORSED MOSES:
            “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, in whom you have put your hope. 46 If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”…
            John 5:45 47

            JESUS A PROPHET LIKE MOSES
            The Old Testament contains hundreds of prophecies about the Messiah; where he would be born, his lineage, what he would accomplish, how he would die. We also know that he would be a king like David (Jeremiah 23:5-6), a priest like Melchizedek (Psalms 110:4) and a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18: 15-19).
            This article is about what it means for Jesus to be a ‘Prophet like Moses’.
            What did Moses Say about Jesus?
            Moses is one of the most revered figures in Judaism as he is the one that God chose to give the Torah (Law) to at Mount Sinai. The “Torah” is the first five books in what Christians call the Old Testament – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
            “To believe Moses” means to believe what he wrote.
            Jesus said to the Jews that did not believe in him that if they really believed Moses, they would believe him;
            “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me. But if you don’t believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:46).
            The Old Testament is so full of references to Jesus that He taught the disciples about Himself from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets on the road to Emmaus;
            “He said to them, “How unwise and slow you are to believe in your hearts all that the prophets have spoken! Didn’t the Messiah have to suffer these things and enter into His glory?” Then beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He interpreted for them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:25-27)
            Moses said that God would send a prophet like himself and that we must listen to him — in fact says that if we don’t listen, God will hold us accountable;
            “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.
            This is what you requested from the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, ‘Let us not continue to hear the voice of the Lord our God or see this great fire any longer, so that we will not die!’ Then the Lord said to me, ‘They have spoken well.
            I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put My words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. I will hold accountable whoever does not listen to My words that he speaks in My name. (Deuteronomy 18: 15-19)
            Jesus was the Prophet like Moses that God raised up
            There were many parallels between Moses and Jesus; as infants both Moses and Jesus were almost killed by ruler’s edicts and both were protected from harm, both spent their early years in Egypt, both cured lepers (Numbers 12:10-15; Matt. 8:2-3) and both were initially doubted in their roles by their siblings. Moses lifted up the brazen serpent to deliver those that had faith and Jesus was lifted up on the cross to deliver all who would have faith. Moses appointed 70 elders to rule Israel (Num. 11:16-17); Jesus appointed 70 disciples to teach the nations (Luke 10:1, 17). But the most striking comparison between Jesus and Moses was that they were both prophets that taught the Law of God.
            Yes, Jesus like Moses taught the Law — the true meaning and practice of the Law as given by God.
            As a Prophet, he was calling the Jews back to the Law as God gave it, rather than what the Pharisees had made it.

            The Standard of the Prophet
            As a Prophet, Jesus had to meet the same criteria that God set for all prophets; that is
            To uphold what God has said or be put to death.
            This ought not to be overlooked.
            Prophets in the Old Testament were to be put to death if what they said did not come to pass or if what they taught caused the people to stray from the way God had already spoken.
            The standard for a prophet is spelled out in the Law of Moses;
            “If a prophet or someone who has dreams arises among you and proclaims a sign or wonder to you, and that sign or wonder he has promised you comes about, but he says, ‘Let us follow other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us worship them,’ do not listen to that prophet’s words or to that dreamer. For the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul. You must follow the Lord your God and fear Him. You must keep His commands and listen to His voice; you must worship Him and remain faithful to Him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he has urged rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the place of slavery, to turn you from the way the Lord your God has commanded you to walk. You must purge the evil from you.” (Deuteronomy 13: 1-5)

            The Teachings of Jesus and the Law
            Some people believe that the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament teach something different than what is taught in the Law of Moses or that He gave them new meaning or disregarded the Law; even breaking some of its commands. Finally, others would say Jesus fulfilled the Law and therefore the Law is no longer relevant.
            Let’s look at each of those a bit closer;
            1. Some people believe that the teachings of Jesus were very different than what was taught in the Old Testament; that the Old Testament was all about the law and the New Testament is all about grace. This idea is worth an article in itself at very least, but let’s look at this idea in terms of what Deuteronomy 13 says. If Jesus taught something different (e.g. grace) than what God had previously taught (e.g. Law), then He would have been leading us away from keeping God’s commands and this would have made Him a false prophet, deserving of death.
            2. Others say that Jesus gave ‘new meaning‘ to what was taught in the Old Testament but this too would have made Him a false prophet. If Jesus reinterpreted the Law of Moses, He would have been urging us to rebellion against the Lord and His commands and we would have been just to put Him to death.
            3. Still others say that Jesus broke all kinds of commands in the Law of Moses and often cite Him healing on the Sabbath as a common example. Jesus did not follow the “Oral Law” of the Pharisees and thus in their minds would have been viewed as breaking the Sabbath, but nowhere in Scripture are there any instances of Him violating any of the commands of the (Written) Law, as recorded in the Law of Moses. Furthermore, if Jesus had indeed broken the Law of Moses — the Law given by God, He would have committed a sin and no longer been the Lamb of God without blemish.
            4. Finally, others say Jesus fulfilled the Law and therefore the Law is no longer relevant. Jesus as the Prophet like Moses was calling the Jews back to a true observance of the Law of which He is the goal (Romans 10:4). Some translations use the word “end” for goal, but the word in Greek [telios] is more clearly understood in the context of Romans 10 as goal. In this context, Paul is referring to the Jews as disregarding the righteousness from God and attempting to establish their own righteousness. Again, this refers to the Pharisees insistence that the observance of “Oral Law” (i.e. ‘the traditions of men’) are equivalent in authority to the Written Law — which is the Law of God. Paul says that they [the Jews] have NOT submitted themselves to God’s righteousness [as embodied in the Law] — of whom Christ is the goal.
            None of the teachings of Jesus recorded anywhere in the New Testament teach something new or different than what is taught in the Law of Moses and at no time does Jesus ever break the commands of the Law, as given by God. In the following examples, we demonstrate that Jesus considered the Law not only relevant to teach, but to exhort believers to practice.

            Jesus upholds the Law
            Here are four examples as to how Jesus, as the Prophet like Moses, upholds the Law of Moses;
            1. Jesus and the Rich Young Man
            The synoptic gospels record the conversation between Jesus and the rich young man who wanted to know how to inherit eternal life.
            Jesus could have simply replied “follow me” but he doesn’t. He reminds the man of the commandments of God in the Law forbidding adultery, murder, stealing, bearing false witness and honouring one’s parents (Mark 10:17-22; Matt 19:16-30; Luke 18:18-30). Jesus upholds the Law.
            It was when the young man said that he had kept these commands from the time he was a youth that Jesus said to sell all he had, distribute it to the poor and follow Him (Luke 18:18-23, Mt 19:19-21, Mark 10:17-21). Jesus continues to uphold the Law in His reply by telling the man to sell all his possessions. He was pointing out that money had become an idol to the man which kept him from keeping the first two commandments; which is to have the Lord as our God and no other gods before Him, and not to make an idol — which money had become to the man. Jesus upholds the Law all the way through this teaching.

            Jesus and the Jewish Lawyer
            In the conversation between Jesus and a Jewish lawyer recorded by Mark and Matthew, the issue of which is the greatest of the 613 commandments came up.
            A question had arisen among the Jews and was now put to Jesus as to which commandment was ‘the first of all’ (Mark 12:28), or ‘the greatest’ (Matthew 22:34) — first and greatest both referring to the same thing.
            In Matthew’s and Mark’s account (Mark 12:31, Matthew 22:39), Jesus replies to the Jewish lawyer saying that ‘the greatest and first commandment’ was to love God with all your heart, soul and strength (Deuteronomy 6:5) and adds ‘the second is this, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). Jesus upholds the Law.
            JESUS AND TORAH
            Moderate Christians love to talk about how Jesus fixed the Old Testament, or, in other words, obsoleted the horribly offensive parts about slavery, keeping women in their place, killing gays, etc. In fact, he did no such thing.
            Jesus fully supported everything in the Old Testament
            Here is Jesus speaking specifically on the topic of Old Testament teachings:

            THE LAW STANDS
            “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass 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 he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19
            “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)
            “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)
            “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)
            Keep in mind, this is Jesus saying this – in the Bible that all Christians own and cherish. Don’t take my word for it; look it up–it’s all there.
            So now that we understand that he fully supported what’s in the Old Testament, let’s take a look at what he actually just commanded us to uphold.

            THE LAW THAT STANDS

            Blasphemy is Punishable by Death
            One who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer. Aliens as well as citizens, when they blaspheme the Name, shall be put to death. (NRSV) — Leviticus 24:16

            Cheaters Must Die
            If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. (NIV) — Leviticus 20:10

            Dishonoring Your Mother or Father is Punishable by Death
            Anyone who dishonors father or mother must be put to death. Such a person is guilty of a capital offense. (NLT) — Leviticus 20:9

            People Who Work on Sabbath Should be Killed
            You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day must be a Sabbath day of complete rest, a holy day dedicated to the LORD. Anyone who works on that day must be put to death. (NLT) — Exodus 35:2

            If a Woman is Not a Virgin When She Gets Married, She Has to Die
            “If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ … and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones … (NKJV) — Deuteronomy 22:13-14,20-21

            There’s Nothing Wrong With Slavery
            Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. (NIV) — Leviticus 25:44

            Sodomites Should be Put to Death
            If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (NRSV) — Leviticus 20:13

            Women Should Keep Quiet and Do as They’re Told
            A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV) — Timothy 2:11-12
            Keep in mind, these aren’t suggestions. They’re not optional. Remember what Jesus said,
            “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven…”
            He also said they’re not open to any personal interpretation. It’s all very clear to anyone willing to actually read the Bible.

    • Nothing exists without the creator God – both Jew and Gentile were created by God from Adam and Eve not a muddy pool .
      Do you honestly think that blind chance changed a cow’s or whatever’s DNA into a whale or an ape into a human – this is pure fantasy .
      Can you give us your mechanism for one “kind” like a bear breeding into a porpoise as Darwin thought – but he at least had an excuse through ignorance of cellular complexity and DNA.

      Time is not a mechanism – no amount of time with monkeys and typewriters would even produce one paragraph of a Shakespeare play
      let alone a 3 billion DNA code and RNA code at the same time – plus
      an operating cell wall etc etc . Your schoolbooks are drivel .

      Natural selection does not change the species at all as most biologists
      admit . There are no transnationals alive or dead when there should be trillions if Darwin’s crazy hypothesis were true.

      “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God.
      I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”

      (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

      • Yo Charlie,

        GENTILES IN HALACHA
        Foreword — Daat Emet
        For a long time we have been considering the necessity of informing our readers about Halacha’s real attitude towards non-Jews. Many untrue things are publicized on this issue and the facts should be made clear. But recently, we were presented with a diligently written article on the subject, authored by a scholar from the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva — so our job was done by others (though we have already discussed some aspects of this issue in the weekly portions of Balak and Matot; see there). Since there is almost no disagreement between us and the author of the article on this issue, we have chosen to bring the article “Jews Are Called ‘Men'” by R’ David Bar-Chayim (in Hebrew) so that the reader will be able to study and understand the attitude of the Halacha towards non-Jews.
        In this article R’ Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards “Gentiles” in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:

        “The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as ‘man,’ and a Gentile.”

        That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R’ Bar-Chayim’s work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R’ Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs not on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.

        For the English readers’ convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R’ Bar-Chayim’s article:

        1. Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).

        2. A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.

        3. A Jew’s exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile’s property. But if a Gentile’s property causes damage to a Jew’s property, the Gentile is liable.

        4. The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah’s law or only by a Rabbinic decree.

        5. A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one’s sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.

        6. The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.

        7. One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.

        8. A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.

        9. One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.

        10. A Gentile — or even a convert to Judaism — may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).

        11. One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.

        12. The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
        13. One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment “love your neighbor” applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
        14. One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: “Your mother shall be greatly ashamed…”

        15. Gentiles are likened to animals.

        16. If an ox damaged a Gentile maidservant, it should be considered as though the ox damaged a she-ass.
        17. The dead body of a Gentile does not bear ritual impurity, nor does a Gentile who touches the dead body of a Jew become impure — he is considered like an animal who touched a dead body.
        18. One is forbidden to pour anointing oil on a Jew, but there is no ban on pouring that oil on a Gentile because Gentiles are likened to animals.
        19. An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is forbidden, even if the ritual slaughter performed was technically correct, because Gentiles are deemed like animals. (Daat Emet does not agree that this is the Halachic reason for invalidating a Gentile’s ritual slaughter — but this is not the place to delve into the subject).
        20. Their members are like those of asses” — Gentiles are likened to animals.
        21. Between the Jews and the Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought

        R’ Bar-Chayim’s arguments and conclusions are clear, Halachically accurate, and supported by almost all the existent major Halachic works. It would be superfluous to say that R’ Bar-Chayim fully embraces this racist Halachic outlook as the word of the Living G-d, as he himself pointed out in the “Conclusion” of his article: “It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d’s word from Sinai, obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is impossible to introduce ‘compromises’ or ‘renovations’ into it.”
        On the other hand, we want to make it clear that Daat Emet — as well as any reasonable people who do not embrace Halachic laws as the word of the Living G-d — are repulsed by such evil, racist discrimination.
        In the Hebrew text we have abridged the second part of R’ Bar-Chayim’s article, “Between Jews and Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought,” because, in our view, the Halacha is the law which obligates every religious Jew while concepts of the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and Jewish thought are not binding on anyone, as our rabbis have already written: “And so the Aggadic constructs of the disciples of disciples, such as Rav Tanchuma and Rabbi Oshaya and their like — most are incorrect, and therefore we do not rely on the words of Aggadah” (Sefer HaEshkol, Laws of a Torah Scroll, p. 60a); we have expanded on this issue in the portion of Vayeshev.
        http://www.come-and-hear.com

        GOOGLE:
        THE JEWS ARE CALLED MEN
        Tzfi’a 3
        THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN JEWS AND GENTILES IN TORAH
        Rabbi David Bar Chaim
        Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav

  2. I much recommend the French book by Catherine Meyer: “Le Livre Noir de la Psychanalysee, Vivre, Penser et aller Mieux sans Freud”, les arènes, Paris, 2005.

  3. You mention stream of consciousness. A much feted and reviewed novel The Lodger by Louisa Treger s couple of years ago is about Dorothy Richardson who was a lover of Wells and credited with inventing stream of consciousness in literature. I won’t go into my own research with Treger which involves a children’s charity (her son’s blog tregernomics.com show who you’re dealing with). I haven’t read the book but no doubt fascinating insight into the mind of a dark mother.

  4. “the aim of all life is death”
    This concept is popular because it removes personal responsibility from the equation. Hell if you really thought this was true and had a sense of personal responsibility, you can reduce that further and blow your head off right away. I wouldn’t say that’s a optimal “aim” to have in life. Not only is this saying obviously naturally false, it’s linguistically a lie as well. To aim is to direct a course to a specified object or goal. Death happens to all humans, we don’t have to aim for it. Pretty silly really, he should’ve been laughed out of his already dubious profession.

    • And that quote from Jerome Frank mirrors what one of my Jewish professors told me in a conversation about psychology promoting mental illness….I asked her if the business of psychiatry was to keep people mentally ill…her reply was “Yep!”

      It was then I decided NOT to become a psychologist…but I still got my BA in Psychology anyway. That way, I can defend myself against idiots who throw psychology in my face.

  5. Christianity is not a branch of Judaism, but a radical departure and transcendence from a disoriented Judaism. The root of Judaism is simply a radical acknowledgement of a transcendent God. But Creation of an imperfect, sinful humanity demands a redeeming Messiah, re-creation or second Creation, which Judaism postulates and promises, but then forgets about. Without this Messiah, Judaism gets lost in petty observances, denominational differences, worldly power struggles and fatalism. Christianity reorients Judaism to embrace their necessary Messiah.

    Freud was a child of atheist parents, and therefore lacked the healing worldview that a religious perspective provides. Freuds’ first theory about his neurotic female patients who told tales of rape by their fathers was that they were all simply telling the truth and that incest was rampant in Vienna. The Vienna medical society could not bear this much truth being exposed, refused to publish this theory and blackballed his further career interests. So Freud changed his theory, now saying that these women were projecting their sexual desire as father figure on him and making these things up, his new “theory” of obfuscation was warmly accepted, and his career took off. The Oedipus complex was born.

    For further insight on Freud, see Carl Jung’s “Memories, Dreams, Reflections”, with a chapter on Freud his mentor and why they eventually split. Jung idolized Freud but eventually realized that Freud was “in the grip of his Daemon”, which is to say, trapped within some of his own mental limitations or projections. Jung had a greater and freer vision, more historical as he would say, not trapped by religious or personal blind spots, and able to be more deeply objective about the psychic experience.

    Freud is to be complemented for being the first to take the inner life of the psyche and dreams seriously and study them objectively, and thereby inventing the field of psychotherapy, a very worthy pursuit. Anyone dabbling into the psyche is walking into a minefield of the crosscurrents of religion, politics and social taboos. This is often very disruptive to those around them, because it reveals unconscious biases and prejudices which we do not want to face or admit, holding a greater and more powerful mirror up to nature. In a free society, it has been a great source of light and healing, but of course, every powerful tool in the wrong hands can be used to create greater harm. Jung knew that in the end, the depths of the psyche remain a mystery.

    Jung struggled to escape his own prejudices and avoid religious projections to describe his clinical observations in order to be taken seriously as a scientist. However he eventually realized that the motive of religion or spirituality was precisely to promote psychic healing, and the themes of mythology and journey of the Christ figure mirrored the journey of the ego to individuation or wholeness. Much of modern psychosis stems from our refusal to acknowledge a higher transcendent power or being, out of materialist or atheist pride, to whom we must submit in humility. Therefore later in his career, Jung often directed people back to the simple religious observance and faith of their childhood to find inner wholeness, healing or stability. Jung came to walk a fine line between acknowledgement of the inner power of faith, and “clinical” objectivity.

    • JESUS A PROPHET LIKE MOSES
      The Old Testament contains hundreds of prophecies about the Messiah; where he would be born, his lineage, what he would accomplish, how he would die. We also know that he would be a king like David (Jeremiah 23:5-6), a priest like Melchizedek (Psalms 110:4) and a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18: 15-19).
      This article is about what it means for Jesus to be a ‘Prophet like Moses’.
      What did Moses Say about Jesus?
      Moses is one of the most revered figures in Judaism as he is the one that God chose to give the Torah (Law) to at Mount Sinai. The “Torah” is the first five books in what Christians call the Old Testament – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
      “To believe Moses” means to believe what he wrote.
      Jesus said to the Jews that did not believe in him that if they really believed Moses, they would believe him;
      “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me. But if you don’t believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:46).
      The Old Testament is so full of references to Jesus that He taught the disciples about Himself from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets on the road to Emmaus;
      “He said to them, “How unwise and slow you are to believe in your hearts all that the prophets have spoken! Didn’t the Messiah have to suffer these things and enter into His glory?” Then beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He interpreted for them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:25-27)
      Moses said that God would send a prophet like himself and that we must listen to him — in fact says that if we don’t listen, God will hold us accountable;
      “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.
      This is what you requested from the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, ‘Let us not continue to hear the voice of the Lord our God or see this great fire any longer, so that we will not die!’ Then the Lord said to me, ‘They have spoken well.
      I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put My words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. I will hold accountable whoever does not listen to My words that he speaks in My name. (Deuteronomy 18: 15-19)
      Jesus was the Prophet like Moses that God raised up
      There were many parallels between Moses and Jesus; as infants both Moses and Jesus were almost killed by ruler’s edicts and both were protected from harm, both spent their early years in Egypt, both cured lepers (Numbers 12:10-15; Matt. 8:2-3) and both were initially doubted in their roles by their siblings. Moses lifted up the brazen serpent to deliver those that had faith and Jesus was lifted up on the cross to deliver all who would have faith. Moses appointed 70 elders to rule Israel (Num. 11:16-17); Jesus appointed 70 disciples to teach the nations (Luke 10:1, 17). But the most striking comparison between Jesus and Moses was that they were both prophets that taught the Law of God.
      Yes, Jesus like Moses taught the Law — the true meaning and practice of the Law as given by God.

      As a Prophet, he was calling the Jews back to the Law as God gave it, rather than what the Pharisees had made it.

      The Standard of the Prophet
      As a Prophet, Jesus had to meet the same criteria that God set for all prophets; that is
      To uphold what God has said or be put to death.
      This ought not to be overlooked.
      Prophets in the Old Testament were to be put to death if what they said did not come to pass or if what they taught caused the people to stray from the way God had already spoken.

      The standard for a prophet is spelled out in the Law of Moses;
      “If a prophet or someone who has dreams arises among you and proclaims a sign or wonder to you, and that sign or wonder he has promised you comes about, but he says, ‘Let us follow other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us worship them,’ do not listen to that prophet’s words or to that dreamer. For the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul. You must follow the Lord your God and fear Him. You must keep His commands and listen to His voice; you must worship Him and remain faithful to Him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he has urged rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the place of slavery, to turn you from the way the Lord your God has commanded you to walk. You must purge the evil from you.” (Deuteronomy 13: 1-5)

      The Teachings of Jesus and the Law
      Some people believe that the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament teach something different than what is taught in the Law of Moses or that He gave them new meaning or disregarded the Law; even breaking some of its commands. Finally, others would say Jesus fulfilled the Law and therefore the Law is no longer relevant.
      Let’s look at each of those a bit closer;
      1. Some people believe that the teachings of Jesus were very different than what was taught in the Old Testament; that the Old Testament was all about the law and the New Testament is all about grace. This idea is worth an article in itself at very least, but let’s look at this idea in terms of what Deuteronomy 13 says. If Jesus taught something different (e.g. grace) than what God had previously taught (e.g. Law), then He would have been leading us away from keeping God’s commands and this would have made Him a false prophet, deserving of death.
      2. Others say that Jesus gave ‘new meaning‘ to what was taught in the Old Testament but this too would have made Him a false prophet. If Jesus reinterpreted the Law of Moses, He would have been urging us to rebellion against the Lord and His commands and we would have been just to put Him to death.
      3. Still others say that Jesus broke all kinds of commands in the Law of Moses and often cite Him healing on the Sabbath as a common example. Jesus did not follow the “Oral Law” of the Pharisees and thus in their minds would have been viewed as breaking the Sabbath, but nowhere in Scripture are there any instances of Him violating any of the commands of the (Written) Law, as recorded in the Law of Moses. Furthermore, if Jesus had indeed broken the Law of Moses — the Law given by God, He would have committed a sin and no longer been the Lamb of God without blemish.
      4. Finally, others say Jesus fulfilled the Law and therefore the Law is no longer relevant. Jesus as the Prophet like Moses was calling the Jews back to a true observance of the Law of which He is the goal (Romans 10:4). Some translations use the word “end” for goal, but the word in Greek [telios] is more clearly understood in the context of Romans 10 as goal. In this context, Paul is referring to the Jews as disregarding the righteousness from God and attempting to establish their own righteousness. Again, this refers to the Pharisees insistence that the observance of “Oral Law” (i.e. ‘the traditions of men’) are equivalent in authority to the Written Law — which is the Law of God. Paul says that they [the Jews] have NOT submitted themselves to God’s righteousness [as embodied in the Law] — of whom Christ is the goal.

      None of the teachings of Jesus recorded anywhere in the New Testament teach something new or different than what is taught in the Law of Moses and at no time does Jesus ever break the commands of the Law, as given by God. In the following examples, we demonstrate that Jesus considered the Law not only relevant to teach, but to exhort believers to practice.
      Jesus upholds the Law

      Here are four examples as to how Jesus, as the Prophet like Moses, upholds the Law of Moses;
      1. Jesus and the Rich Young Man
      The synoptic gospels record the conversation between Jesus and the rich young man who wanted to know how to inherit eternal life.
      Jesus could have simply replied “follow me” but he doesn’t. He reminds the man of the commandments of God in the Law forbidding adultery, murder, stealing, bearing false witness and honouring one’s parents (Mark 10:17-22; Matt 19:16-30; Luke 18:18-30). Jesus upholds the Law.
      It was when the young man said that he had kept these commands from the time he was a youth that Jesus said to sell all he had, distribute it to the poor and follow Him (Luke 18:18-23, Mt 19:19-21, Mark 10:17-21). Jesus continues to uphold the Law in His reply by telling the man to sell all his possessions. He was pointing out that money had become an idol to the man which kept him from keeping the first two commandments; which is to have the Lord as our God and no other gods before Him, and not to make an idol — which money had become to the man. Jesus upholds the Law all the way through this teaching.
      2. Jesus and the Jewish Lawyer
      In the conversation between Jesus and a Jewish lawyer recorded by Mark and Matthew, the issue of which is the greatest of the 613 commandments came up.
      A question had arisen among the Jews and was now put to Jesus as to which commandment was ‘the first of all’ (Mark 12:28), or ‘the greatest’ (Matthew 22:34) — first and greatest both referring to the same thing.
      In Matthew’s and Mark’s account (Mark 12:31, Matthew 22:39), Jesus replies to the Jewish lawyer saying that ‘the greatest and first commandment’ was to love God with all your heart, soul and strength (Deuteronomy 6:5) and adds ‘the second is this, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). Jesus upholds the Law.

      The Jesus of Roman Catholicism/Protestantism aka Christianity, is a mixture of Old Testament & Roman paganism.

  6. Mr Russ Winter , very interesting article , but probably the most important influence of freudian ideas was , and is , on commercial propaganda and public relations .

    One nefew of Sigmund Freud , Edward Bernays was the father of modern publicity and propaganda . One brother of Freuds wife Martha Bernays emigrated to New York at the beguining of the 21 st century . His son Edward always kept in touch with uncle Sigmunds ideas , and found how to use his ideas to make people buy whatever ,from cigarettes and cars to political and social ideas . Edward Bernays saw that if you increase the emotional and instintive parts of the individual ( the ” unconscious ” ) ,the logic , the intelligence , of the individual dininishes ,and the propaganda system , commercial and political , can do as it pleases with the people .

    There is a very important documental of the BBC made by Adam Curtis , about Bernays and Freud , titled ” The Century of the self ” , it lasts 4 hours , but it is worth it , it is a must to undestand our times . Here is the link :
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

  7. It seems that in one occasion one of the disciples of Freud after hearing one of his seminars about how long objects can represent phaliic symbols asked him : ” Dr. Freud ,could you elaborate on the symbolism of you smoking cigars ” ? , and the tradition says that Freud answered : ” well , sometines a cigar ,is just a cigar “

Post a Comment

Winter Watch
%d bloggers like this: