On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 05:36:39 -0800, Patti Goebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gilberto: > > I think Jesus substantially continued to endorse the laws of the Torah > > and taught his followers to continue to follow them. He just deepened > > their understanding of its principles. So in declaring that the laws > > were mostly abrogated, Christianity didn't "progress" it actually lost > > out and cut itself off from certain spiritual riches which were part > > of Judaism and the practice of Jesus and the first disciples. Islam, > > by having a shariah which is so similar to this way of life shares in > > these spiritual riches which Christianity had cut itself off from. > > > > Patti: > I thought you were the one arguing that Christianity didn't change the laws. > Now you say that Christianity declared that the laws of the Torah "were > mostly abrogated".
Not exactly. I'm was saying **Jesus** didn't change the laws. But then Pauline Christianity after him declared most or all of the rules of the Torah abrogated. I think there is a fairly large disconnect between what Jesus taught and Christian doctrines. Patti: > I think you and I were pretty close to being essentially > on the same page here, and perhaps I got the discussion a bit off track when > I used the term "abrogated" when speaking of the Sabbath. I do believe that > Christ actually fulfilled the law of the Torah (although more in a spiritual > sense than a literal sense), although he de-emphasized (I actually think > it's > pushing it a bit too far to say abrogated) some of the social laws. If you > are aware of the different perspectives in "The Seven Valleys", I would say > that the difference between thinking that the laws are different is a matter > of "names", while by the time one attains the 7th Valley (or 7th heaven) the > understanding is that they (in this case the laws) are all essentially the > same on that spiritual level and lead in toward the same outcome.. Gilberto: I'll have to look more into that. Patti: My interest in the Templars stems (other than a > supposed connection to the Priory of Scion that Dan Brown writes about in > The Da Vinci Code) to the fact that a group of German Templars, by studying > the prophecies of the Bible actually determined the time & place and moved > to Mt. Carmel to look for the return of Christ and lived just below the spot > on Mt Carmel where Baha'u'llah pitched His tent when He was finally allowed > a bit of freedom during His exile to Akka. Gilberto: Did Bahaullah know about the Templars and their association with Mt. Carmel when he chose to put his tent there? Patti: > I simply do not see how you come up with the shariah having spiritual > riches that Christianity cut itself off from in its core teachings. Gilberto: Because the rituals and practices of Islam and Judaism transform the most mundane moments of everyday life into sacred events and have the capacity to make a person very conscious of God's presence. Christianity does this to a smaller degree. > > Gilberto: > > He doesn't change the law of the Sabbath. The incident in question was > > relatively unique. > > > Patti: > I'm not certain that it was that unique. Here are a few examples: > > Matthew 12:1 "At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn; > and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and > to eat." Right. That incident is probably the same one we were discussing before, just in a different gospel. > Mark 3:2-4 "And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath > day; that they might accuse him. And he saith unto the man which had the > withered hand, Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good > on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held > their peace." Gilberto: Again Jesus isn't abolishing the Sabbath. He isn't saying the Sabbath is like any other day. He's not declaring that it is lawful to do other things on the sabbath. He's clarifying a very specific and particular exception to the rules. I only appreciated this after being Muslim for a while. But the scholars who interpret Islamic laws or Jewish laws aren't as stupidly legalistic as some seem to think. For example, in Islam it is well known that pork is prohibted. But what if you are stuck on a deserted island and you are starving to death and the only thing to eat available is pork. What do you do? Well, this is what the Quran says: [16.115] He has only forbidden you what dies of itself and blood and flesh of swine and that over which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring nor exceeding the limit, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. So Islamic law is certainly capable of recognizing that there are extreme situations where the normal rules don't apply. But it is still the case that in general pork is prohibited. I think one can understand the above example in the New Testament the same way. Jewish law even before Jesus already recognized that the Sabbath rules had exceptions. If in order to save a life you had to "break the sabbath" then saving a human life takes a higher priority. But that doesn't mean the sabbath has been abolished. And by the same token, Jesus healed the man's whithered hand on the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was still intact. Or another similar example is in John 7 [22] Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man upon the sabbath. [23] If on the sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the sabbath I made a man's whole body well? So here is another case of an exception to the Sabbath which the Jews already accepted, and Christ is simply arguing by analogy. The other case you had brought up is kind of interesting and gives me more to think about. > Gilberto: > > The disciples of Jesus were a special group with > > a more specialized set of requirements. Some teachings were for them, > > and other teachings were for the general crowd. Not all men can > > receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. So Jesus > > wasn't abolishing the laws in the Torah about divorce, he was giving > > more specific instructions to his disciples. > Patti: > That's an interesting way of looking at it. I've never made a distinction > between disciples--to me a believer is a disciple. Gilberto: Well, think about it. There were 12 disciples at first, but there were others who believed without being disciples (the various Marys for instance, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimethea, etc.) Gilberto: I think if you look at the instructions Jesus gives to his disciples in the New Testament it would be difficult to impossible to base an entire country on those principles: Gilberto: Banning divorce, turning the other cheek, selling most of your possessions and giving the money to the poor. He was calling his disciples to a very different and unconventional kind of life. But its a step that not everyone could take. > > Gilberto: > >Incidentally, I asked in a different > > context but never got an answer. Do the Bahai teachings actually talk > > about circumcision? Because it is obviously part of Judaism, and > > according to the Bible Jesus was circumcized. But circumcision is also > > practiced in Islam. > > So it is weird to think the circumcision would be a part of the > > religions before and after Christianity, but that inbetween it would > > be abolished. > Patti > I haven't seen anything in the Writings about circumcision. Gilberto: OK. Patti: Although I > think Paul is simply getting at the deeper "heart" of the matter & seeing > that the literal law had a deeper spiritual meaning--which actually was > indicated in the old testament Gilberto: I agree that it was indicated there as well. Patti: in Deuteronomy 10:16 "Circumcise therefore > the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked"; Deuteronomy 30:6 > "And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy > seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, > that thou mayest live."; Jeremiah 4:4 "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, > and take away the foreskins of your heart"; & Jeremiah 9:26 "Egypt, and > Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in > the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are > uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart." Gilberto: I think there are similar examples to that when it comes to other topics. (blood sacrifice is one but I'm not sure you want to talk about it. It's something I've only really mentioned to Christians) Already in the Old Testament religion there was this spiritual component. It's just that the people forgot it, and so when Jesus came he reminded them of this aspect. But it wasn't a matter of abrogating the law or declaring the past system spiritually regressive. It's a matter of reminding people of the depth and spiritually which was already there in the beginning. Peace Gilberto __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
