General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ed Schultz EXPOSES Cause Of Racism In The South [View all]happyslug
(14,779 posts)I wanted to make sure I put what you were quoting in the proper context.
As to the Fig Tree, Tradition says it died, but the actual quote is that it would bear no more fruit, which can mean it dies or becomes barren. The Traditional interpretation has been to look inviting is NOT enough, you must produce. Catholic attitude is you must not only believe, but do good works.
As to Leviticus, Jesus makes no mention of it at all, in fact disobeys it at various times:
1. in not washing before eating
2. dealing with a Non-jew in the form of the Centurion.
3. Picking Grain to eat AND curing one man of Leprosy on the Sabbath
Here is some cites that says Jesus did NOT violate Leviticus when he cured the person on the Sabbath, has to go through some hoops to do so, but in doing so clearly makes out the case that Leviticus are NOT to be strictly followed in the first place:
http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/magazines/2005/may-jun/did-jesus-break-the-sabbath
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesusignorelaw.html
On top of the above violation of Leviticus, you have to understand Leviticus was to be modified by mercy, love and other alternatives. The classic case is Joseph and Mary. Joseph found Mary pregnant, and under Leviticus, he had the right to kill her in front of her father, but instead Joseph decided to "divorce her quietly". This is written up as if it was the most common solution in that situation, but that Leviticus did permit him to kill her. It was only after Joseph decided to divorce Mary, that the Angels appeared to him and told him NOT to do it. When Joseph decided to Divorce Mary Quietly, he was following old Jewish tradition to apply mercy and love to the harsh rules of Leviticus.
I bring up Joseph and Mary for mercy and love was crucial to Jewish law, for without BOTH, Leviticus was to harsh. Jesus message that he was to fulfill the law was to fulfill what most of the prophets had preached, to protect the poor, to treat each other with respect, to work together over and above the harsh rules of Leviticus (These were overwhelming themes among the prophets, Leviticus was NOT a work of any Prophet but a book found in the Temple that the Temple Priests said were the words of God).
One last comment on Leviticus, Peter actually would make it a church rule that Leviticus did not apply to non-Jewish Christians for it made no sense to impose those rules on non Jews.
Side note: Given preservation techniques of the time period and transportation methods, shell fish would be an abomination by the time they arrived in Jerusalem, it would have rotted so bad it would make people SICK if eaten in Jerusalem. In many ways Leviticus reflects what was good for and in Jerusalem, not outside that city. The condemnation of shell fish is the best example of this.
Keeping pigs in a desert community (such as the mid-east) would also be an "Abomination" for pigs use as much water as a person, unlike sheep and goats which need a lot less water. Those desert tribes that rejected Pigs, had more water for people (and thus more people to fight for the tribe) then tribes that raised pigs (Except areas of extensive water, the Nile Delta and Mesopotamia were the two big examples). Thus desert people (which included the Jews and the Arabs) tended to ban pigs, in favor of Goats and Sheep. In fact Arabs rejected horses till Mohammad made it a requirement to keep at least one for war for his followers (Camels could carry more, and use less water, Ox could haul greater loads, thus both were preferred by Arabs over Horses till Mohammad). Thus the ban on pigs among people in wet area made no sense, and thus dropped by Christians as they expanded into such areas,