How to consider Joan of Arc? I brought that up with my learning partner years ago when I first saw the transcript of her trial. I found that transcript to be more compelling and shocking than anything else I had read about her. It was like I was in the courtroom with her.
But as many other issues my learning partner did not relate well to what I was asking.
He was thinking that whatever is Jewish is good and right and whatever is not is the Sitra Achra.
That approach seems to me to be highly inaccurate. While I do think there is a Sitra Achra [Dark Realm] I do not think the dividing lines are drawn according to those specifications.
Part of my reasoning is the Gra at the beginning of Shir Hashirim but also the Arizal.[about the higher root of the children of Noah].
But also I have a kind of Kantian view point about unconditioned realities. [Reason does not work there and when it tries to it comes up with self contradictions.]
The best way I think to consider Joan de"Arc is as the Rambam. I mean to say that he would not be willing to cut any slack to any kind of approach that is not a part of the Oral and Written Law of Moses, but he would also see a preliminary stage bringing to the Law of God.
[You would have to see his approach to Ancient Hellas (Nemusai HaYevanim")
Appendix:
(1) The laws of the ancient Greeks [as known to Avraham the patriarch ] was considered by Maimonides to be Natural Law that needed to be revealed in order for the higher level of the Law of Mount Sinai to come into the world.
(2) The Rambam would not cut any slack to Joan De'Arc as being part of the Catholic Church. He would in spite of the good and worthy aspects still consider the basic structure as wrong. According to the Torah we are commanded not to worship a person even as a mediator. And this applies to gentiles as well as to Jews. That is the faith of the Law of Moses in Ethical Monotheism. No mediators. And that God is not a composite and he is not the world. That is the Rambam (and Aquinas also for that mater) considered these things objective morality.
But as many other issues my learning partner did not relate well to what I was asking.
He was thinking that whatever is Jewish is good and right and whatever is not is the Sitra Achra.
That approach seems to me to be highly inaccurate. While I do think there is a Sitra Achra [Dark Realm] I do not think the dividing lines are drawn according to those specifications.
Part of my reasoning is the Gra at the beginning of Shir Hashirim but also the Arizal.[about the higher root of the children of Noah].
But also I have a kind of Kantian view point about unconditioned realities. [Reason does not work there and when it tries to it comes up with self contradictions.]
The best way I think to consider Joan de"Arc is as the Rambam. I mean to say that he would not be willing to cut any slack to any kind of approach that is not a part of the Oral and Written Law of Moses, but he would also see a preliminary stage bringing to the Law of God.
[You would have to see his approach to Ancient Hellas (Nemusai HaYevanim")
Appendix:
(1) The laws of the ancient Greeks [as known to Avraham the patriarch ] was considered by Maimonides to be Natural Law that needed to be revealed in order for the higher level of the Law of Mount Sinai to come into the world.
(2) The Rambam would not cut any slack to Joan De'Arc as being part of the Catholic Church. He would in spite of the good and worthy aspects still consider the basic structure as wrong. According to the Torah we are commanded not to worship a person even as a mediator. And this applies to gentiles as well as to Jews. That is the faith of the Law of Moses in Ethical Monotheism. No mediators. And that God is not a composite and he is not the world. That is the Rambam (and Aquinas also for that mater) considered these things objective morality.
