79 replies to this topic

[Beckys_Mom]

Ben Masada, on 11 June 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

This has nothing to do with what God wants us to do or not.
Ben

How would you know exactly what god wants any of us to really do?     We cannot speak for God.. But feel free to express a belief you hold   yes.. but  not one I agree with

[libstaK]

Paranoid Android, on 11 June 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

Heya libstaK, as with my last comment to BM, I'm only skimming these posts so I cannot at this time of night give further details, but I do recall reading this comment from you in another thread recently, so it got me to thinking as to where you got this quote from and why you like it so?  *not that I disagree with it per se, I just find it an interesting quote to be using*

Thanks,

I was being more lighthearted than serious, I  am not sure who said this quote first tbh.  However, it is commonly used and mostly in a lighthearted manner.

On the more serious side though, I do believe that a person has to take personal responsibility for making the most of any opportunities that their present circumstances provide them with to better themselves emotionally, psychologically, physically and in providing material security.  I think it is fair to say that some of "grace" presents itself as opportunity and by taking action therein (moral good action) may lie the opportunity for further acts of grace befitting the sincerity of the effort and thereby how genuine the need.

Spiritually, I believe it works, as one example, in the matter of "Ask and you shall receive, knock and the door shall be opened to you" Matthew 7:7 paraphrased - you will help yourself by asking the question and knocking on that door. It is the enquiry that provides the answer for the seeking mind IMO.

Let it be said clearly though that the quote itself in no way suggests that only those who help themselves are going to receive God's help, nope not at all in so many matters we ourselves are not aware at all of what we need but God is and if I was to use another much loved but "exact origins unknown" quote it would be, God understands what we need far better than we do - there is a supreme act of faith required to believe that if we use the injustices of the world as an example, but faith in it's nature pushes us to accept our own ignorance and be thankful for what we receive nonetheless.

[rimbaudelaire]

If there were a multi-billion-dollar industry in our society whose sole purpose was to get you to murder, commit adultery, steal, or perjure yourself, we might wonder about its legitimacy. These transgressions are forbidden by commandments No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 [of the Ten Commandments], proclaimed for the second time in the Torah in Deuteronomy 5:17. Yet regarding the next one on the list, No. 10, there is just such an industry - the advertising industry. It is designed to get you to want things you don’t have, to covet.
And yet the captains of this industry are not put behind bars; they are handsomely rewarded. The “products” of this industry - ads - are not distributed on the black market, nor do they reach consumers in brown paper wrappers. They are thrust before us in broad daylight, in every cranny of our society and culture.
“Thou Shalt Not Covet.” It sounds so Puritan, so old-fashioned. Yet the psychic state of continually wanting more, of perennial dissatisfaction with what we have, and therefore with who we are (for the two have become pathologically connected), is the driving force of our consumer society. Once, greed was bad - avarice, cupidity, rapacity, lust: these were vices to be rooted out. They threatened social relations, the common good, and the spiritual well-being of the individual. But the advance of the free market and the quasi-religious belief in “the invisible hand” change all that: Act solely for your own material betterment, says the new catechism, and the mechanism of supply and demand will ensure benefit for all. In the guise of “enlightened” self-interest, greed has been rehabilitated. Consumptive culture cultivates covetousness. And spiritual well-being? Oh, don’t be so new-agey.
Forbidden to Desire? -- or to Grab?

To be sure, the tenth commandment does not speak explicitly of society as a whole. It is an individual precept condemning coveting one’s neighbor’s property. But what does that mean? There is a 2,000-year-old debate among commentators, Christian and Jewish, about whether the injunction concerns feelings or behavior. On one hand, it seems unreasonable to legislate desire. On the other, the improper actions that stem from covetousness - theft and adultery - have already been proscribed. Maimonides explains in Sefer Hamitzvot and in the Mishneh Torah, in the Laws of Theft and Loss, that the commandment bans something between thought and action: active scheming to get the desired object, putting undue pressure on the owner to sell - even if you end up paying full value. The actual act need not be illegal, but the intention and method of its implementation are flagged as immoral and destructive.
Enter advertising. Because producers covet consumers’ money, they need to get consumers to covet their goods. Social historians note a change in American advertising after World War I, from conveying product information to manufacturing desire. The public, business people feared, was too frugal. To rev up the economy, products were associated with images, glamour, personal identity. Marketing moved from fulfilling needs to creating them. Thirty years later, the post-World War II boom gave us planned obsolescence, whose most recent incarnation is the need for continual upgrading of our electronic gadgets.
Advertising deals in dissatisfaction. We buy in order to cure the blemishes that ads mercilessly invent. The list of our maladies is endless, from body odors to vehicular impotence. The number of products available equals the number of these flaws multiplied by the number of brands available. This bounty is what we call “affluence,” though the proliferation of products and desire is a disease properly dubbed “affluenza.”
Jewish Law Imposes Limits on Advertising

In contrast, Jewish law strictly limits acceptable means of advertising one’s wares. A storekeeper can’t even polish his apples to make them more attractive than his competitors’ fruit if there is no difference in quality.
Contemporary economist Kenneth Boulding has made the distinction between a “cowboy economy” and a “spaceship economy.” The cowboy had endless horizons, unlimited resources, and no problem disposing of waste. Our world, however, increasingly resembles a spaceship: limited resources that must be husbanded; living conditions that are profoundly affected by our actions. In a cowboy world, the original reading of the tenth commandment made sense -- protecting property and controlling the coveting of things not one’s own. In a spaceship world, “Don’t covet” must be read anew: The simple act of continually wanting more is destructive of self, others and the world. Coveting goods - that is, seeking to “keep up with the Joneses” -- doesn’t mean robbing other people, just buying as much as them. And if the entire world were to adopt the lifestyle of the average American, we would need four more planets just to get by.
Or perhaps this reading isn’t so new. The great Greco-Jewish philosopher of antiquity, Philo, generalized “Do not covet” to include greed for money, hunger for honor, sexual lust, hedonism and gluttony. He thereby emphasized the emotional side of insatiable desires and the importance of spiritual work. “Who is rich?” says Tractate Avot of the Mishnah, and answers that it is not one who has material wealth, but rather “one who is satisfied with his portion.” And “who is strong? One who controls his desires.” This inner work is a necessary first step toward the ultimate goal of transforming society, from obsession with quantity to striving for quality, from acquisition to inner disposition, and from merely having to truly being.

- Jeff Bernstein

http://www.myjewishl...vertising.shtml

[Ben Masada]

Beckys_Mom, on 11 June 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

How would you know exactly what god wants any of us to really do? We cannot speak for God.. But feel free to express a belief you hold   yes.. but  not one I agree with

A very easy question requires no more than a very simple answer. It is very easy to know what God wants us to do. It is all down in the Scriptures. Take a look at Deuteronomy 30:11-14. No, don't bother. I'll print it here for you. You deserve more than that.

"For this command which I enjoin on you today is not too mysterious and remote for you. It is not up in the sky, that you should say, 'Who will go up in the sky to get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?' Nor is it accross the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea to get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?' No, it is something very near to you, already in your mouths and in your hearts; you have only to carry it out."

See how simple? That's how I know what God wants me to do. It is all here with us. And according to Psalm 147:19,20, it was given to us - Israel - and to no other people on earth. It means that, if another person tells you that what he or she has it is the real Mckoy, ask for an evidence in the only Scriptures that Jesus considered to be the Word of God. Because it must be according to the Law and the Prophets. (Isa. 8:20) If they don't speak according to this method, it is because there is no truth in them.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

rimbaudelaire, on 12 June 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

If there were a multi-billion-dollar industry in our society whose sole purpose was to get you to murder, commit adultery, steal, or perjure yourself, we might wonder about its legitimacy. These transgressions are forbidden by commandments No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 [of the Ten Commandments], proclaimed for the second time in the Torah in Deuteronomy 5:17. Yet regarding the next one on the list, No. 10, there is just such an industry - the advertising industry. It is designed to get you to want things you don’t have, to covet.
And yet the captains of this industry are not put behind bars; they are handsomely rewarded. The “products” of this industry - ads - are not distributed on the black market, nor do they reach consumers in brown paper wrappers. They are thrust before us in broad daylight, in every cranny of our society and culture.
“Thou Shalt Not Covet.” It sounds so Puritan, so old-fashioned. Yet the psychic state of continually wanting more, of perennial dissatisfaction with what we have, and therefore with who we are (for the two have become pathologically connected), is the driving force of our consumer society. Once, greed was bad - avarice, cupidity, rapacity, lust: these were vices to be rooted out. They threatened social relations, the common good, and the spiritual well-being of the individual. But the advance of the free market and the quasi-religious belief in “the invisible hand” change all that: Act solely for your own material betterment, says the new catechism, and the mechanism of supply and demand will ensure benefit for all. In the guise of “enlightened” self-interest, greed has been rehabilitated. Consumptive culture cultivates covetousness. And spiritual well-being? Oh, don’t be so new-agey.
Forbidden to Desire? -- or to Grab?

To be sure, the tenth commandment does not speak explicitly of society as a whole. It is an individual precept condemning coveting one’s neighbor’s property. But what does that mean? There is a 2,000-year-old debate among commentators, Christian and Jewish, about whether the injunction concerns feelings or behavior. On one hand, it seems unreasonable to legislate desire. On the other, the improper actions that stem from covetousness - theft and adultery - have already been proscribed. Maimonides explains in Sefer Hamitzvot and in the Mishneh Torah, in the Laws of Theft and Loss, that the commandment bans something between thought and action: active scheming to get the desired object, putting undue pressure on the owner to sell - even if you end up paying full value. The actual act need not be illegal, but the intention and method of its implementation are flagged as immoral and destructive.
Enter advertising. Because producers covet consumers’ money, they need to get consumers to covet their goods. Social historians note a change in American advertising after World War I, from conveying product information to manufacturing desire. The public, business people feared, was too frugal. To rev up the economy, products were associated with images, glamour, personal identity. Marketing moved from fulfilling needs to creating them. Thirty years later, the post-World War II boom gave us planned obsolescence, whose most recent incarnation is the need for continual upgrading of our electronic gadgets.
Advertising deals in dissatisfaction. We buy in order to cure the blemishes that ads mercilessly invent. The list of our maladies is endless, from body odors to vehicular impotence. The number of products available equals the number of these flaws multiplied by the number of brands available. This bounty is what we call “affluence,” though the proliferation of products and desire is a disease properly dubbed “affluenza.”
Jewish Law Imposes Limits on Advertising

In contrast, Jewish law strictly limits acceptable means of advertising one’s wares. A storekeeper can’t even polish his apples to make them more attractive than his competitors’ fruit if there is no difference in quality.
Contemporary economist Kenneth Boulding has made the distinction between a “cowboy economy” and a “spaceship economy.” The cowboy had endless horizons, unlimited resources, and no problem disposing of waste. Our world, however, increasingly resembles a spaceship: limited resources that must be husbanded; living conditions that are profoundly affected by our actions. In a cowboy world, the original reading of the tenth commandment made sense -- protecting property and controlling the coveting of things not one’s own. In a spaceship world, “Don’t covet” must be read anew: The simple act of continually wanting more is destructive of self, others and the world. Coveting goods - that is, seeking to “keep up with the Joneses” -- doesn’t mean robbing other people, just buying as much as them. And if the entire world were to adopt the lifestyle of the average American, we would need four more planets just to get by.
Or perhaps this reading isn’t so new. The great Greco-Jewish philosopher of antiquity, Philo, generalized “Do not covet” to include greed for money, hunger for honor, sexual lust, hedonism and gluttony. He thereby emphasized the emotional side of insatiable desires and the importance of spiritual work. “Who is rich?” says Tractate Avot of the Mishnah, and answers that it is not one who has material wealth, but rather “one who is satisfied with his portion.” And “who is strong? One who controls his desires.” This inner work is a necessary first step toward the ultimate goal of transforming society, from obsession with quantity to striving for quality, from acquisition to inner disposition, and from merely having to truly being.

- Jeff Bernstein

http://www.myjewishl...vertising.shtml

Shalom Mr. Bernstein, IMHO, the commandment not to steal and not to commit adultery requires a fence around them to make them harder to be transgressed. Therefore, not to covet won its position in the Decalogue, albeit not as a commandment but rather as a fence to safeguard those two commandments from being broken. Why? Probably because to steal could imply also to kill, and definnitely to commit adultery could end up in breaking with the commandment not to kill.

Think of Paris, the younger son of Priam, king of Troy. He subjected Helene to commit adultery, which resulted in the destruction of the whole city of Troy. All this could have been avoided if he had prevented himself from coveting the wife of Menelaus. If we resist the thought to covet, we could be free from the punishment that comes as a result of stealing and committing adultery. And life could become a lot easier to live.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 15 June 2012 - 07:12 PM.

[rimbaudelaire]

Ben Masada, on 15 June 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Shalom Mr. Bernstein, IMHO, the commandment not to steal and not to commit adultery requires a fence around them to make them harder to be transgressed. Therefore, not to covet won its position in the Decalogue, albeit not as a commandment but rather as a fence to safeguard those two commandments from being broken. Why? Probably because to steal could imply also to kill, and definnitely to commit adultery could end up in breaking with the commandment not to kill.

Think of Paris, the younger son of Priam, king of Troy. He subjected Helene to commit adultery, which resulted in the destruction of the whole city of Troy. All this could have been avoided if he had prevented himself from coveting the wife of Menelaus. If we resist the thought to covet, we could be free from the punishment that comes as a result of stealing and committing adultery. And life could become a lot easier to live.
Ben

Shalom, havri.

Agreed, Ben. To covet (in the negative sense) is impossibly problematic. It is at the heart of human nature, right? Desire drives us, right and wrong. We have an uncanny fascination with that "seedy underbelly" of life. Many Jews adhere to the thought alone as yetzer ra and just as many adhere to only acting out on those coveted, negative desires as yetzer ra. The Torah is filled with examples of both.

Yom tov.

PS - Jeff Bernstein is the author of the article. I am not him.

[King Fluffs]

I know that I'm going to go to hell if it's real.

[Beckys_Mom]

Ben Masada, on 15 June 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

A very easy question requires no more than a very simple answer. It is very easy to know what God wants us to do. It is all down in the Scriptures.

Highlighted in bold above   = belief  aka  taking the word of others and believing it as truth.. still just a belief..  So  not what I would class as  fact for all to observe.. You either have to read it and descide whether you want to beleivei n it.. I  don't... thefore  those scripture mean nothing to me other than  another mans  beleifs..

Quote

  See how simple? That's how I know what God wants me to do.   

That is because you adopted the belief of some ancient men that's all it is ... and took it for yourself  to hold on to, you chose to believe in it and your own right to do so, it is after all your personal choice.........  
To speak on my own behalf - to me is  written down beliefs of people back in the day and nothing more.. ..   I believe that   no man can seriously speak for God and never will do.... Mankind cannot begin to comprehend God...  And no one has managed to convince me  likewise..

Example - If you were to write down  words of your own and not someone else's.. and you wrote about your own personal experiences...  Complied them into a book along side other people in present times  personal experiences/ stories about God...  Leave that book for 1000 - 2000  years.. People in the future may find it and think all that you wrote was truth and may call it fact ...Why? because they will have made a choice to believe  in it.. They wouldn't need any real hard evidence..( religion doesn't require facts, hence why it is called a belief  / faith )   Just read it and take your word for it..

That is what beliefs are...it's a matter of how it appeals to a person  ..does it make the person feel it is truth?  Or does it make the person just call it another  fictional story tale?   All up to the person.. Still just a choice in the end, depending on how it can appeal to you  and what you make of it..  
I can write about some spirit and  tell people it is fact...can they prove it it is not?  That's the trick with beliefs, no one can prove for real  or disprove it.. That is why your belief is required..it relies on it

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 15 June 2012 - 08:04 PM.

[Ben Masada]

rimbaudelaire, on 15 June 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

Shalom, havri.

Agreed, Ben. To covet (in the negative sense) is impossibly problematic. It is at the heart of human nature, right? Desire drives us, right and wrong. We have an uncanny fascination with that "seedy underbelly" of life. Many Jews adhere to the thought alone as yetzer ra and just as many adhere to only acting out on those coveted, negative desires as yetzer ra. The Torah is filled with examples of both.

Yom tov.

PS - Jeff Bernstein is the author of the article. I am not him.

But you do agree with me that "coveting" is not a sin, right? It is something to be avoided to prevent it from coming into effect, but it is not a sin as long as it stays in the mind. That's what I mean.
Ben

[Mr Walker]

Ben Masada, on 08 June 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

I did consider your thought but, since the origin for this thread was based on a Christian poster's question about thoughts considered by Jesus himself as transgressions to commandments, according to Matthew 5:22,27,  I chose to post my reply with the proper comments on this forum rather than as a private blog to make it clearer that the Jewish position with regards to thoughts having not the force of commandments but of simply fences around the Law. Since Jesus was a learned Jew, I am afraid that he would not have changed such a Jewish concept.
Ben

Theres probably a lot written on this in the intervening posts, but once again you make a basic error of logic/assumtion based upon preexisting belief.

OF COURSE jesus sought to change old jewish ways of thinking and of interpreting the law. Almost every talk he gave had an element of this in it.  Just because you ma y tend to a conservative position" within your own belief set( ie that tradition is the basis for truth) does not mean that everyone does, or that jesus did. Jesus was a "revolutionar jew" with a revoutionary theology. And jesus specifically said that the commandments applied to thoughts. But he also said the commanndemts were about love not law and should be obeyed from, and through, love not fear or legalism. AND yes if he said this then he believed it.

He was actually deliberately pointing out a flaww in the way jewish theology had evolved into legalism at his time in history. This was one of the resasons why the conservative authorities, to whom the law was absolute and the source of their stauts and power, hated and feared christ so much, and why they wanted him silenced.

[rimbaudelaire]

Ben Masada, on 15 June 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

But you do agree with me that "coveting" is not a sin, right? It is something to be avoided to prevent it from coming into effect, but it is not a sin as long as it stays in the mind. That's what I mean.
Ben

Yes, I do agree, Ben Masada, in the exact context in which you defined. I think most of the Midrash authors/contributors struggled with the "slipperiness" of the commandment not to covet, as well. When I was studying the Talmud and Midrash, my girlfriends and the other females in the class had more than a few "debates" with our rabbi (a 60-something eastern European 'old school' guy who we absolutely loved personally) concerning the amount of "disconnect" of the 613 towards the modern feminist/gender equality movement. "Thou shall not covet" also seems to become "slippery" because our society is so far removed from modern cultures. I have friends in Brooklyn who live in a strict Orthodox community and they do find it difficult to observe every "nook and cranny." Do you see the same or similar "disconnect?" Not all that long ago, maybe 2 or 3 years, there was an article in the JPost about reconciling the Judaism of today with the Judaism of then. I'll look for it. It has to be somewhere on the web.

Great thread, Ben Masada. My name is Lisa.

[Ben Masada]

Mr Walker, on 16 June 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

Theres probably a lot written on this in the intervening posts, but once again you make a basic error of logic/assumtion based upon preexisting belief.

OF COURSE jesus sought to change old jewish ways of thinking and of interpreting the law. Almost every talk he gave had an element of this in it.  Just because you ma y tend to a conservative position" within your own belief set( ie that tradition is the basis for truth) does not mean that everyone does, or that jesus did. Jesus was a "revolutionar jew" with a revoutionary theology. And jesus specifically said that the commandments applied to thoughts. But he also said the commanndemts were about love not law and should be obeyed from, and through, love not fear or legalism. AND yes if he said this then he believed it.

He was actually deliberately pointing out a flaww in the way jewish theology had evolved into legalism at his time in history. This was one of the resasons why the conservative authorities, to whom the law was absolute and the source of their stauts and power, hated and feared christ so much, and why they wanted him silenced.

IMHO, rather the opposite is true about everything you have said above about Jesus. If you read Matthew 5:17-19, there is no place for your saying that "Of course, Jesus sought to change old Jewish ways." Until heaven and earth pass away, said Jesus, not the smallest letter of the Law, not even the smallest part of a letter shall be done away with. With such a declaration, it does not seem to any one with the least of commonsense that Jesus had a mind to change the Jewish laws. And there is more, he said, "WOEVER" breaks the least significant of these commandments and teaches others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of God. Does such a man sound like a revolutionary? I didn't think so. He rather confirmed and made it a must to ALL, not only himself, the responsibility upon all to stick to the Law.

Instead of Jesus, I rather see Paul with the attitude that the Jewish Theology was full of flawns and pointless. No wonder he declared that the Law was abolished on the cross, as if Jesus had a mind to do so. (Ephe. 2:15) Never mind that Jesus himself declared loud and clear that he had not come to abolish the Law. That's why I have the feeling that there were two Jesuses, the one of Paul and the Jewish one.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

rimbaudelaire, on 16 June 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

Yes, I do agree, Ben Masada, in the exact context in which you defined. I think most of the Midrash authors/contributors struggled with the "slipperiness" of the commandment not to covet, as well. When I was studying the Talmud and Midrash, my girlfriends and the other females in the class had more than a few "debates" with our rabbi (a 60-something eastern European 'old school' guy who we absolutely loved personally) concerning the amount of "disconnect" of the 613 towards the modern feminist/gender equality movement. "Thou shall not covet" also seems to become "slippery" because our society is so far removed from modern cultures. I have friends in Brooklyn who live in a strict Orthodox community and they do find it difficult to observe every "nook and cranny." Do you see the same or similar "disconnect?" Not all that long ago, maybe 2 or 3 years, there was an article in the JPost about reconciling the Judaism of today with the Judaism of then. I'll look for it. It has to be somewhere on the web.

Great thread, Ben Masada. My name is Lisa.

Lisa, you are another among the "free" ones with a mind of their own.
Ben

[Mr Walker]

Ben Masada, on 19 June 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

IMHO, rather the opposite is true about everything you have said above about Jesus. If you read Matthew 5:17-19, there is no place for your saying that "Of course, Jesus sought to change old Jewish ways." Until heaven and earth pass away, said Jesus, not the smallest letter of the Law, not even the smallest part of a letter shall be done away with. With such a declaration, it does not seem to any one with the least of commonsense that Jesus had a mind to change the Jewish laws. And there is more, he said, "WOEVER" breaks the least significant of these commandments and teaches others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of God. Does such a man sound like a revolutionary? I didn't think so. He rather confirmed and made it a must to ALL, not only himself, the responsibility upon all to stick to the Law.

Instead of Jesus, I rather see Paul with the attitude that the Jewish Theology was full of flawns and pointless. No wonder he declared that the Law was abolished on the cross, as if Jesus had a mind to do so. (Ephe. 2:15) Never mind that Jesus himself declared loud and clear that he had not come to abolish the Law. That's why I have the feeling that there were two Jesuses, the one of Paul and the Jewish one.

Ben

Jesus did not seek to change the law (s). He did something much more radical. He sought to change WHY people should obey it, (out of love, not legalism or fear) and he explicitly taught that  the law begins in the heart and mind, and that to break a law in ones heart/ mind is just as much a sin as to break it in practice; BECAUSE the law begins in ones heart, not in ones practice. This was revolutionary to judaic law at the time,  and appears to be revolutionary and unacceptable doctrine/theology to you, as well.

Ps try not to slectively quote. This is what i wrote

Quote

"OF COURSE jesus sought to change old jewish ways of thinking and of interpreting the law. "

Thats different from

Quote

OF COURSE jesus sought to change old jewish ways

which suggests i said that jesus wanted people to change their practices and obedience to the law.

No, he wanted them to change their mindset, and way of thinking, about the law to make them MORE obedient to the law. Because, " As the heart  (or mind ) goes, the body follows."

Edited by Mr Walker, 20 June 2012 - 08:46 AM.

[Ben Masada]

Mr Walker, on 20 June 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

Quote

Jesus did not seek to change the law (s). He did something much more radical. He sought to change WHY people should obey it, (out of love, not legalism or fear)

What's the difference between obeying the Law out of love or out of duty as long as the Law is being obeyed? None. Therefore, this is mere verbal juggling that means nothing.

Quote

and he explicitly taught that  the law begins in the heart and mind, and that to break a law in ones heart/ mind is just as much a sin as to break it in practice; BECAUSE the law begins in ones heart, not in ones practice. This was revolutionary to judaic law at the time,  and appears to be revolutionary and unacceptable doctrine/theology to you, as well.

In that case, you are talking about the Jesus of Paul who was not Jewish but rather Hellenist. According to Judaism, which was the Faith of Jesus, a sin may begin in the heart, aka, mind, but it does not actually become a sin until it is in one's practice. Jesus was a Jewish man, don't forget.

Quote

Thats different from which suggests i said that jesus wanted people to change their practices and obedience to the law.

No, he did not. A real Jew would not want the Jews to change the way they obey God's Law. Read again, Matthew 5:18,19.

Quote

No, he wanted them to change their mindset, and way of thinking, about the law to make them MORE obedient to the law. Because, " As the heart  (or mind ) goes, the body follows."

No, what he did was to build a fence around the commandment not to covet, or not to get angry with one's neighbor, in order to avoid carrying out an action that would end up in a transgression of the Law. But actually, to covet or to get angry is not an actual sin. In progression though, but not in an actual sinful action. Jesus would have effected a change in the Halachah which he did not.

Ben