Two new blog posts.

blog/posts/2020-11-20-christ-was-not-a-revolutionary.html

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+<p>"Jesus was a revolutionary", "Jesus Christ's revolutionary message",
+"the Christian revolution." These are phrases we've probably all heard
+before in reference to Jesus Christ and His teachings. Most notably,
+the equivocation of Jesus Christ with any kind of revolutionary spirit
+tends to come from those who wish to change some fundamental Church
+Teaching, and by framing our Lord as a revolutionary, it makes it appear
+that such changes are "what Christ would've done", or indeed possible in
+the first place. Yet, this makes little to no sense, neither biblically
+nor philosophically.</p>
+
+<p>To start, what is a <i>revolution</i>? Well, as the Oxford Dictionary
+would define it, a revolution is: "A forcible overthrow of a government
+or social order, in favour of a new system." In this case, we know
+certainly that our Lord was not trying to overthrow any government. In
+fact, He purposefully avoided titles that would associate Him with the
+political liberation from foreign powers that the people of Israel had
+been hoping for, preferring instead to use the title "Son of Man."
+Therefore, it is clear that if one wishes to imply that Jesus caused
+some kind of revolution, it would be to the social order and not the
+government. But even this is unfounded in any real biblical evidence. In
+fact, it's quite the opposite. Jesus makes clear that His mission is not
+to change or abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+	"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I
+	have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until
+	heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a
+	letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished."<br />
+	- Matthew 5:17-18 (NRSVCE)
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>However, we do know that Jesus does continuously make efforts to
+correct the Pharisees on their interpretation of the Law. So what does
+this mean? Did Christ lie when He said He had come to fulfill the Law?
+No, it means that, much like many Christians of today, the Pharisees
+held to their own traditions rather than those of God. In their pride,
+they held their own customs to the same standard as the Law given by
+God (or perhaps even higher).</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+	"'You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.'
+	Then he said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the
+	commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!'"<br />
+	- Mark 7:8-9 (NRSVCE)
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Therefore, it becomes clear that it was not Jesus Christ who was the
+revolutionary, but the Pharisees. Our Lord came to fulfill the Law which
+the Pharisees had manipulated.</p>
+
+<p>However, even from reason alone we can see how calling Jesus Christ a
+revolutionary is illogical. Jesus Christ is God the Son, who has existed
+since the beginning, eternally with the God the Father. He is also the
+Truth and the Word through which all was made. As God, He is also all
+good, and perfect, and <i>ordered</i>. God cannot contradict Himself,
+otherwise there would be disorder and falsehood. What Christ teaches is
+the same Law with which God created the Universe: Divine &amp; Natural
+Law. These have existed since always, and are prior to any Man-made
+conceptions of law. As such, since Divine &amp; Natural Law precede
+the laws of Men, it would be the laws of Men that are revolutionary, and
+Jesus Christ, who upholds Divine &amp; Natural Law a reactionary or
+counter-revolutionary.</p>
+
+<p>Now, of course, usually the retort is that although all this is
+true, the we say something is revolutionary or not in contrast to the
+anthropological social order, not the metaphysical. But even if we
+accept such an excuse - which I do not - it encourages certain very
+false ideas as to what can and cannot change with regards to Church
+Teaching. Namely that fundamental Church Dogmas &amp; Doctrines can be
+changed, which they cannot. The idea is that if Jesus came and
+<i>revolutionized</i> all that God had revealed to the people of Israel
+prior, then who is to say that teachings cannot be revolutionized again?
+It calls into question the Dogma of the Church that the fullness of
+Divine Public Revelation was received with Jesus Christ, and all we need
+to know for our Salvation is present in Sacred Scripture and Sacred
+Tradition, which are interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church (see
+CCC § 74-87)<sup><a href="#r1" >[1]</a></sup>. As such, even if it is
+just for the sake of avoiding scandal, we must refrain from calling
+Jesus Christ a <i>revolutionary</i>.</p>
+
+<label id="r1" >[1]</label>
+<a
+	   href="https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm"
+	   target="_blank" >
+	   https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm
+</a>