Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: "Grail Message" (was Re: Creation) Message-ID: Date: 27 Nov 90 08:44:20 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 107 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: > Again, you have not represented my words accurately. My words were that > the Grail Message "only confirms what is good and right in the Bible". > That is to say it does not reject what is good and true and right therein, > but quite naturally can only confirm all that is good and true in the Bible. > Because the fact is that reincarnation was a > part of Church doctrine for hundreds of years after the life of Christ. If (a) the Grail Message teaches reincarnation, and (b) "the Grail Message confirms what is good and right in the Bible" then the following passage from Hebrews is not "good and right": [Jesus doesn't have to sacrifice over and over like a High Priest] Hebrews 9:26 Then Christ would have had to usffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. :27 JUST AS MAN IS DESTINED TO DIE ONCE, AND AFTER THAT TO FACE JUDGEMENT, :28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. The context shows that Heb 9:27 isn't a throwaway line, but is at the core of the argument. It is specifically affirmed that Christ has not suffered "many times". Hebrews is in the canon fixed for the West by the Council of Carthage in 395. It was listed among the disputed books in Origen's list of about 250, and isn't in the Muratorian Canon aout 200. It might be possible to argue that Hebrews became accepted after reincarnation was dropped, but we'd want some positive evidence. I didn't see anything in the letters of Ignatius that reminded me of reincarnation. > > Or take the objection to "karmic law". We have the words of Jesus that say: > > "As a man sows, thus shall he reap." If someone else refers to this as the > > Law of Sowing and Reaping, or as karma, or as fate, isn't it still the same > > thing? Can someone supply the reference for this? Even with the aid of the biggest newest concordance I can find (The NIV Exhaustive Concordance) I am unable to locate this phrase in the Gospels. I can find it in Galatians: Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived: G-d cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. We find sowing-and-reaping elsewhere in Paul, e.g. 2 Corinthians, where the context is the collection for the relief of the poor. 2Cor 9:6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. The context there makes it quite clear that the reward is to be experienced in the same lifetime as the gift. Why is it important to be clear about whether reincarnation is true or not? Consider carefully the following quotation from R.Elaza HaKappar in Pirkei Avos (yes, a Jewish source, but Judaism is the background of Jesus and of Paul, and I'm _not_ citing this as an authority). 4[29] Let not your evil inclination promise you that the grave wil be an escape for you--for against your will you were created; against your will you were born; against your will you live; against your will you die; and against your will you are destined to give an account before the King Who rules over kings, the Holy One, Blessed is He. To say it otherwise, consider a three-way version of Pascal's wager, the three possibilities being 1. Materialism is right. Death comes as the end. 2. Reincarnation is right. The law of karma binds us to the wheel and we keep coming around until we follow something like the Eightfold Way and get _off_. 3. The Rabbis quoted in Pirkei Avos are right. We live once, die once, and after that the Holy One will judge us before we can enter the World to Come. If 1 is correct, it doesn't matter _what_ we believe. When we're dead, it won't matter to us what choice we made, because _we_ won't be there to care. What we do in this life may have consequences for others, but wait a bit and they'll be dead and non-existent too. If 2 is correct, making a mistake in this life isn't fatal. (Sorry (:-).) If our actions in this life are "good", we'll come around again in much the same sort of condition, and we'll have another chance. The mistake will delay our release, but no mistake is irrevocable. If 3 is correct, if indeed "This world is like a lobby before the World to Come" [Pirkei Avos 4[21]], then it matters that we make the right choice. There's only one safe bet among these three, and that's 3. That doesn't establish that Christianity is right; I've quoted Pirkei Avos precisely to show that there is yet a further choice to be made, and if I'd had the forethought to bring my copy of the Quran into the office I could have quoted it to the same end. -- I am not now and never have been a member of Mensa. -- Ariadne.