Responding to questions in a thread:
One Core Religion, Progressively Elaborated
Background
Me: The “religion” of Noah and Moses was the same “religion,” handed down from Adam to Noah and from Noah to Jacob’s (“Israel’s”) twelve sons. In Egypt, most of Israel forgot those beliefs and adopted Egyptian practices. Moses merely wrote it down as God restored it and elaborated on it.
Response: Does that mean Jesus modified and changed the eternal religion by deeming everything allowed to be eaten?
Secondly, do you have a proof of your claim that it was the same religion, or is it just a conjecture?
Response
First, the trend of the “religion” of Elohim/YHWH/Jesus as defined in the Bible has a constant thread of depending on God instead of on self-righteousness, and being rewarded with enjoying a personal relationship with God. The doctrines of the “religion” developed through punctuated elaboration. That is, at various times, more details were added so that it forms a continuum, just like the education of any student. The Jewish authorities of Jesus’s time dropped out by rejecting the next layer of elaboration and the corrections that laid its groundwork.
To me, calling that process “modifying and changing” is like saying that conducting a student from sixth grade into seventh grade is “changing” his education. There is a change in the student’s stage, but the stages of the plan have been there all along. So, from the religionist’s perspective, perhaps; from the Planner’s perspective, no.
Just as some schools will put part of their students on a path toward manual vocations and others on a path toward college, God separated the descendants of Abraham from the rest of the world. The purpose of the Abrahamic path became clear when God singled out Jacob’s descendants to become Israel, a nation of priests to the world (they failed miserably) and the path through which the Redeemer would come. A special role required special policies.
The Mosaic Law had a number of purposes, among which was conveying a message about holiness. The need for holiness was symbolized, for example, by dietary regulations. However:
- The dietary regulations were part of the Mosaic Covenant (or “Law” or “contract”) between God and Israel. The Law never had jurisdiction outside of Israel (“gentiles”).
- Israel abrogated the Law through breach of contract, violating it repeatedly, ultimately by rejecting the promised Messiah.
- God abrogated the Law by fulfilling it through the Messiah (“Christ”).
- God supplanted the Law with a new covenant (“New Testament”) with simplified requirements: Trust the sacrifice of Christ for redemption instead of trusting self-righteousness; Love God; love your neighbor; and love fellow believers. The simplification was new, but it continued “the spirit of the Law” that had always existed.
The butterfly is still the same creature that it was when it was a caterpillar. When a child discards the toys of a toddler in favor of the toys of a pre-pubescent, the process of maturation is not “modified or changed.” You aren’t changing the “religion” by moving it into a more mature phase.
Second, the genealogies do not say, “X begat Y and taught him his religion, and Y begat Z and taught him his religion,” etc. However, the whole of the scriptures emphasize that beliefs are passed from generation to generation; that the beliefs God defines should be passed down; and there were generations such as Abel, Seth, and Enoch between Adam and Noah that were specifically said to walk with God. And isn’t it the hope of every parent that their child will follow their religious (or non-religions) belief?
I’m accustomed to people (specifically, atheists) who ask for “proof,” demanding unreasonable, tangible, irrefutable, complete, and constantly available evidence. Since time machines are fantasy, I’m prejudiced to say that, according to their standards, “No, there’s no proof.” But if you’re a reasonable person, I’m sure a time machine won’t be necessary.
Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated reuse. Please give credit where credit is due.
No comments:
Post a Comment